911 Pentagon - 757 or cruise missile???

[Faun]

So far, all you've offered are denials based on the erroneous depiction of a north side approach

You've offered no solid evidence that their north side approach testimonials are erroneous.

Now you're flat out lying.

In post #319 I showed you photographic evidence indicating the direction of the plane's debris following its impact with the Pentagon.

You showed me photographic evidence of a bunch of holes lined up in a row. Your problem is that you have so little evidence of what can even vaguely be construed of as debris from a crashed 757 at the scene. And then there's the witnesses north of Columbia Pike, as well as the NTSB flight path as well as the 9/11 Commission Flight path, none of which line up with that debris.

The direction of that debris proves the direction the plane was flying as it struck the building and that direction renders it physically impossible for the plane to have come from the north side of the Citco gas station.

No, that damage only means that the plane couldn't have struck the Pentagon if it was coming from the North side. However, it may have exploded in mid air, especially if it was not a 757 as Morin originally thought (he originally thought it was a 737), but a smaller aircraft. Or it could have flown right over and continued, which is what CIT believes.

That leaves those witnesses, some of whom were never interviewed on public record prior to CIT interviewing them in 2008, as either wrong, or worse -- lying.

And what of the witnesses who -were- interviewed on public record prior to CIT interviewing them? Darryl Stafford comes to mind...

Now you're venturing even deeper into delusion. There's no evidence any plane exploded over the Pentagon. Many eyewitnesses saw the plane fly into the Pentagon. You're incapable of proving they're all either lying or wrong. And there was sufficient damage to the Pentagon to determine the direction the plane was traveling as it flew into the building; which eliminates any such notion that the plane flew straight into the Pentagon at about a 90 degree angle from north of the Citco.

 

[Faun]

True, I did not show such evidence. I did, however, point out there is evidence; I just chose not to bother showing you because all you'll do is move onto another denial. So I chose to leave your denial right where it is.

Let me get this straight- you are saying there is evidence that the photograph can be seen with the Pentagon in the background?

Yes. But again, showing you is pointless as you will merely look then to your next avenue of denial.

It's what you do.

Here, watch...

Take careful notice of the section of the [yellowish brick] wall visible in this picture at the top-left corner of this picture...

Now compare that to the wall of the Pentagon in this photo...

The picture above has yellow bricks, the one below has grey bricks...

Great, more dementia.

Despite the difference in hue, which can be attributed to lighting, the cracks on the walls are identical, the bricks are identical, even some of the debris, like the two white pieces of debris where the line I drew points to, are identical.

But I do thank you. Thank you for once again proving me right when I pointed out earlier how you are armed with absolutely nothing but denials and conjecture.

Here you are, desperately denying things which are plainly obviously true.

 

[Faun]

The irony of course is that it is the 911 Liars who will end up in a special hell here on Earth. It is common knowledge now that 911 was a false flag event. The only ones not convinced are those that will not look. The perps time is growing short now...

The whole 911 event was a staged fake. Look at the video of the plane going through the side of the building, without slowing down, without crumpling or breaking... Then, when entirely in the building exploding!

The truth is that the plane should have smashed on the outside of the building like a mosquito on a windshield.

There were no planes! Wake up dupes!

So all the eyewitnesses who watched it happen live were what.... suffering from the largest massive delusion known to the entire history of mankind?

 

[candycorn]

First of all, what evidence do you have that that photo was taken at the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 occurred? Secondly, what evidence do you have that that was the body of one of AA77's passengers?

Thought we were passed that bullshit…

Okay here are federal exhibits: Surely thats satisfactory….

And another from earlier:

As for being from the flight…few military uniforms have blue and white stripes.

So how do you account for the bodies of civilians being in the Pentagon? Did your shadowy ninja-conspirators re-dress the bodies before planting them????

 

[phoenyx]

So far, all you've offered are denials based on the erroneous depiction of a north side approach

You've offered no solid evidence that their north side approach testimonials are erroneous.

Now you're flat out lying.

In post #319 I showed you photographic evidence indicating the direction of the plane's debris following its impact with the Pentagon.

You showed me photographic evidence of a bunch of holes lined up in a row. Your problem is that you have so little evidence of what can even vaguely be construed of as debris from a crashed 757 at the scene. And then there's the witnesses north of Columbia Pike, as well as the NTSB flight path as well as the 9/11 Commission Flight path, none of which line up with that debris.

The direction of that debris proves the direction the plane was flying as it struck the building and that direction renders it physically impossible for the plane to have come from the north side of the Citco gas station.

No, that damage only means that the plane couldn't have struck the Pentagon if it was coming from the North side. However, it may have exploded in mid air, especially if it was not a 757 as Morin originally thought (he originally thought it was a 737), but a smaller aircraft. Or it could have flown right over and continued, which is what CIT believes.

That leaves those witnesses, some of whom were never interviewed on public record prior to CIT interviewing them in 2008, as either wrong, or worse -- lying.

And what of the witnesses who -were- interviewed on public record prior to CIT interviewing them? Darryl Stafford comes to mind...

Now you're venturing even deeper into delusion. There's no evidence any plane exploded over the Pentagon.

You may well be right about that. Given the evidence, this leaves only one possibility- that it flew over it. But enough of what I and many others who disagree with the official story believe. What version of the -official- story do -you- believe? Did the aircraft fly according to the NTSB data, the 9/11 Commission data, or actual physical damage path? You can only choose one, as none of these versions concord with each other...

Many eyewitnesses saw the plane fly into the Pentagon.

CIT has already gone over most if not all of the verified witnesses who some have claimed witnessed the plane hit the building. Their commentary on the witnesses is worthy of note:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82&st=0

By all means, introduce any witnesses that you believe provide credible evidence that the plane actually hit the building. So long as they actually have a first -and- a last name, I think CIT has already looked into them and is probably on the list linked to above.

You're incapable of proving they're all either lying or wrong.

Time will tell. Bring forward your witnesses.

And there was sufficient damage to the Pentagon to determine the direction the plane was traveling as it flew into the building

There was certainly damage to the Pentagon, but there is a slew of reasons why this wasn't caused by an aircraft. I've gone over them before in a response to candy, they can be seen in this thread in post #435.

 

[Faun]

We'll mark you down as a no-planer [insults removed]

“Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.” - Stephen R. Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change

You have zilch to offer...

Only for those who refuse to listen. If you don't listen, you will never learn.

One can only surmize that you've never listened since you have shown no understanding about what constitutes evidence vs. hearsay, what the commonly accepted thresholds for evidence admission are, and frankly you lack a certain maturity hold your own in a conversation. Certianly you'll bring up insults and profanity and that's cool...but sometimes when someone like you comes around, the best favor you can do for them is to ridicule the ridiculous, tell them they are full of shit, and watch how they react.

Judging from the lack of any successes in 15 years of the existance of the twoofers, one would expect you to be able to deduce how lame your "movement" is for yourself. Since you were not...I don't feel the least bit guilty about illustrating it.

You do fine when you're preaching to your side of the fence, but I haven't seen anyone on -my- side of the fence consider your frequently insulting posts to be persuasive in any respect. In order to persuade someone to a different point of view, you need certain conditions to be met. Here's 4 I thought of just now:
1- Avoid insulting their viewpoint. This tends to get listen to you less, if at all.
2- Understand why they hold their viewpoint.
3- Find information that refutes their viewpoint.
4- Get them to listen to the information.

To give an example, I believe I have gotten Faun to atleast listen to -some- of the information I've provided. His acceptance of Terry Morin's testimony regarding the flight path of the airplane approaching the Pentagon, and his acknowledgement that some of CIT's witnesses also testified shortly after 9/11 is perhaps my greatest achievement in this regard. As to you, I'm not sure you've learned anything from what I've had to say.

There's no point in adhering to any of those points. Twoofers reject reality. They literally invent any nonsense that comes to mind, despite any supporting evidence and dismiss actual evidence as fake. And since 100% of the evidence we review is either photographic or video, it's regrettably too easy to dismiss ALL evidence as being tampered with. But hey, if Twoofers want to reside within their own demented bubble of delusion, all the rest of us can do is shake our collective heads and laugh at them.

 

[phoenyx]

Take careful notice of the section of the [yellowish brick] wall visible in this picture at the top-left corner of this picture...

Now compare that to the wall of the Pentagon in this photo...

The picture above has yellow bricks, the one below has grey bricks...

Great, more dementia.

If I said -you- had dementia every time you disagreed with me, we would have either stopped talking to each other or have gotten bogged down in insults long ago .

Despite the difference in hue, which can be attributed to lighting, the cracks on the walls are identical, the bricks are identical, even some of the debris, like the two white pieces of debris where the line I drew points to, are identical.

And I, ofcourse, am supposed to just trust you on your judgement ? Sorry, but I won't be so accomodating as that. This is all a moot point anyway. Regardless of whether or not the debris in question was photographed at the Pentagon (something which I've seen no evidence for), all of the other factors make it clear that it would have to have been planted evidence.

 

[Faun]

So far, all you've offered are denials based on the erroneous depiction of a north side approach

You've offered no solid evidence that their north side approach testimonials are erroneous.

Now you're flat out lying.

In post #319 I showed you photographic evidence indicating the direction of the plane's debris following its impact with the Pentagon.

You showed me photographic evidence of a bunch of holes lined up in a row. Your problem is that you have so little evidence of what can even vaguely be construed of as debris from a crashed 757 at the scene. And then there's the witnesses north of Columbia Pike, as well as the NTSB flight path as well as the 9/11 Commission Flight path, none of which line up with that debris.

The direction of that debris proves the direction the plane was flying as it struck the building and that direction renders it physically impossible for the plane to have come from the north side of the Citco gas station.

No, that damage only means that the plane couldn't have struck the Pentagon if it was coming from the North side. However, it may have exploded in mid air, especially if it was not a 757 as Morin originally thought (he originally thought it was a 737), but a smaller aircraft. Or it could have flown right over and continued, which is what CIT believes.

That leaves those witnesses, some of whom were never interviewed on public record prior to CIT interviewing them in 2008, as either wrong, or worse -- lying.

And what of the witnesses who -were- interviewed on public record prior to CIT interviewing them? Darryl Stafford comes to mind...

Now you're venturing even deeper into delusion. There's no evidence any plane exploded over the Pentagon.

You may well be right about that. Given the evidence, this leaves only one possibility- that it flew over it. But enough of what I and many others who disagree with the official story believe. What version of the -official- story do -you- believe? Did the aircraft fly according to the NTSB data, the 9/11 Commission data, or actual physical damage path? You can only choose one, as none of these versions concord with each other...

Many eyewitnesses saw the plane fly into the Pentagon.

CIT has already gone over most if not all of the verified witnesses who some have claimed witnessed the plane hit the building. Their commentary on the witnesses is worthy of note:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82&st=0

By all means, introduce any witnesses that you believe provide credible evidence that the plane actually hit the building. So long as they actually have a first -and- a last name, I think CIT has already looked into them and is probably on the list linked to above.

You're incapable of proving they're all either lying or wrong.

Time will tell. Bring forward your witnesses.

And there was sufficient damage to the Pentagon to determine the direction the plane was traveling as it flew into the building

There was certainly damage to the Pentagon, but there is a slew of reasons why this wasn't caused by an aircraft. I've gone over them before in a response to candy, they can be seen in this thread in post #435.

Now you're lying again... flying over the Pentagon is not actually the only remaining possibility.

I have no desire to bring forward any witnesses. We've, or I, have moved beyond trying to prove anything to you since you're clearly only going to deny anything and everything which doesn't fit into your imagination of what happened. Evidence of this lies in my belief I have absolutely zero doubt that someone who has spent as much time researching this as you say you have, has already seen the witnesses who have stated they saw the plane fly into the Pentagon. So why on Earth would you ask me to show you what you have already seen except to set you up with yet more denials?

 

[Faun]

Take careful notice of the section of the [yellowish brick] wall visible in this picture at the top-left corner of this picture...

Now compare that to the wall of the Pentagon in this photo...

The picture above has yellow bricks, the one below has grey bricks...

Great, more dementia.

If I said -you- had dementia every time you disagreed with me, we would have either stopped talking to each other or have gotten bogged down in insults long ago .

Despite the difference in hue, which can be attributed to lighting, the cracks on the walls are identical, the bricks are identical, even some of the debris, like the two white pieces of debris where the line I drew points to, are identical.

And I, ofcourse, am supposed to just trust you on your judgement ? Sorry, but I won't be so accomodating as that. This is all a moot point anyway. Regardless of whether or not the debris in question was photographed at the Pentagon (something which I've seen no evidence for), all of the other factors make it clear that it would have to have been planted evidence.

Well you could convince me you're not crazy if you could post a single piece of evidence that every eyewitness was lying or wrong. Or a single piece of evidence that DNA from the bodies recovered didn't actually match passengers recorded on flight #77's manifest. Or a single piece of evidence that those passengers were killed somewhere else...

.... but you can't because you have none.

All you have are delusional denials. Like claiming that wall of the Pentagon in two different photos is not the same wall because the lighting is different. A sane person would reflect on the level of desperation needed to mount that denial and feel at least a tinge of embarrassment. But not a Twoofer. No sir, Twoofers feel no shame because the world they've crafted for themselves allows for any nonsense, no matter how ridiculous, to permeate. They lack the shame required to keep them grounded in reality.

 

[Faun]

The question is this, "How do you plausibly explain the wreckage (i.e. physical evidence) being there?"

How many times do I have to repeat myself -.-? Once again, from CIT's article:
**
Please remember that the suspiciously small amount of plane debris was one of the reasons that many people were initially skeptical as to whether or not a plane really hit the Pentagon in the first place.

None of the photographed parts have been positively identified as belonging to "Flight 77" or tail #N644AA via the matching of serial numbers, and there has been no attempt to reconstruct the plane as is usually the protocol during aircraft crash investigations.

Furthermore, the mere presence of these pieces of debris does not prove a plane hit. Once again the suspect in question had complete control of the area, which had been under "renovation" for years. Parts photographed inside could have easily been placed there before or after the event. Parts photographed on the outside lawn could also have been easily planted, either shortly before the event or during the chaos that ensued just after the explosion. Minutes after the "attack" (flyover) there was a panicked evacuation for fear of another plane coming in.
**

Until you come up with a plausible explanation on how the “small” amounts of wreckage ended up on the Pentagon lawn and inside the Pentagon.

Are YOU stating that the wreckage was planted by hand? Even when there are no eye-witnesses, no proof whatsoever, no admission of having done it 15 years after the fact?

I find CIT’s explanation to be quite plausible,

Which is why your “movement” never got anywhere. Physical evidence always trumps eyewitness testimony.

The physical evidence doesn't help your case either. Here's an excerpt of an article from Truth and Shadows, a site that I respect a lot...
**
The plane is alleged to have hit a newly renovated and reinforced part of the building that had only minimal staff present. Had any other part of the building been hit, thousands would have been killed. As it was, the death toll in the building was 125.

The hole created in the outer ring of the Pentagon by the supposed impact was less than 20 feet in diameter and was just a few feet above ground level. The upper floors, which should have been hit by the tail section of the plane remained intact. Most windows were not even broken, although the upper floors did collapse about 20 minutes after the crash.

**There was no damage to either side of the 20-foot hole where the fuselage would have hit although there was a “hole” about 90 feet across at ground level – not wide enough to accommodate a plane with a 124-foot wingspan (As Massimo Mazzucco points out in September 11: The New Pearl Harbor, the plane is supposed to have hit at a roughly 42-degree angle, which would have extended the width of the contact betweeen the plane and the wall from 124 feet to 160 feet). There was no damage to the grass, which should have been gouged by the engines dragging on the ground.

All of this is physically impossible, plain and simple. The wings of a 757 can’t hit a concrete building at more than 500 mph without leaving a mark. And they certainly won’t be vaporized by exploding jet fuel.

There is NOT ONE piece of wreckage that has been positively tied to Flight 77. The engines, virtually indestructible, were not recovered, although it is claimed that an engine “core” was from one of the 757 engines. There were no bodies, no seats, no pieces of luggage. There were a couple of pieces of fuselage but they were big enough that one person could pick them up. There’s no proof it came from that plane.

Are you still willing to buy the idea that the plane was incinerated in the explosion? Can the energy exist to blow a plane into small bits of metal while simultaneously penetrating 310 feet into the Pentagon? The problem there is that photos of the damaged Pentagon clearly show offices with their side wall sheared off. Visible are wooden desks with computers on them and other office furniture. There’s even a wooden stool with an open book sitting on top of it just a foot or two from the ripped off wall. The heat was intense enough to vaporize the plane but not hot enough to set office furniture or books on fire.

The thing that seals the deal for me is just looking at the photos. Keep in mind the dimensions of the plane. And the opening in the building was about 75 feet wide after the upper floors collapsed, and about 90 feet at ground level (less than 20 where the fuselage would have hit).

Oh, I almost forgot. The Pentagon, one of the most secure buildings in the world, was hit supposedly without one clear image being captured on a security camera. According to theWashington Times, the heli-pad, which is very near where the impact happened, is under 24-hour surveillance. They also report that the FBI has admitted it has 83 different videos of the crash. But all that has been released are five non-sequential frames that are totally inconclusive.

The Times also reported that the FBI confiscated footage recorded by cameras at a nearby Sheraton hotel, and from the Citgo gas station right across the street within minutes of the crash. The gas station attendant told the newspaper that the video footage would surely have shown the impact...**

Source: How we know an airliner did not hit the Pentagon | Truth and Shadows

So the next chapter we come to in the ever-more-fanciful CIT look into AA77 is the dead bodies of the passengers:

Photo by A J

Care to plausibly explained how that was found in the Pentagon?

First of all, what evidence do you have that that photo was taken at the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 occurred? Secondly, what evidence do you have that that was the body of one of AA77's passengers?

It's quite revealing that you trust and respect truth & shadows despite their blatant lies. Hell, you even posted a monstrous lie of theirs yourself.... quoting you, quoting them...

The hole created in the outer ring of the Pentagon by the supposed impact was less than 20 feet in diameter and was just a few feet above ground level. The upper floors, which should have been hit by the tail section of the plane remained intact.

...that's a bald-faced lie intended to fool gullible Twoofers into believing a 757 could not possibly have crashed into the Pentagon and fit into a 20 foot hole. But the sad reality for truth & shadows, as well as for you.... is that 20 foot hole is not actually on the "outer ring of the Pentagon," as they falsely portay; but actually on the middle ring. Meaning that AA77 traveled through 6 exterior walls of the Pentagon before debris from the plane finally punched that 20 foot hole on the back side of the C-ring. The outer ring of the Pentagon is the E-ring, which had about 75 feet across of damage, not 20 feet as Twoofers lie about.

So why do you Twoofers lie if facts and reality were indeed on your side?

 

[phoenyx]

So the next chapter we come to in the ever-more-fanciful CIT look into AA77 is the dead bodies of the passengers:

Care to plausibly explained how that was found in the Pentagon?

First of all, what evidence do you have that that photo was taken at the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 occurred? Secondly, what evidence do you have that that was the body of one of AA77's passengers?

Thought we were passed that bullshit…

And what is this "bullshit", my actually questioning evidence you provide? Put another way, you introduce a new piece of evidence, and expect me to just accept it as authentic because you say so?

Okay here are federal exhibits: Surely thats satisfactory….

And another from earlier:

As for being from the flight…few military uniforms have blue and white stripes.

Thank you for providing those pictures. I've traced them back to their site of origin, and I can see that they are from the Moussaoui trial. For those who don't know how to find their source, they are here:
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200047.jpg

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200042.jpg

The Moussaoui trial is something that I have gone over before, possibly with someone in this forum (Faun perhaps), or possibly in another forum I frequent. Essentially, my point was this: while the government provided this evidence, it doesn't specify -who- in the government provided it. This is a problem, as it has been mentioned before that the chain of custody regarding 9/11 evidence has frequently been non existent. What we have above looks to be the charred remains of -someone-, but we have only the government's word that it was photographed at the Pentagon, and who that someone was is unknown, blue and white shirt notwithstanding.

So how do you account for the bodies of civilians being in the Pentagon? Did your shadowy ninja-conspirators re-dress the bodies before planting them????

From CIT's FAQ:
Frequently Asked Questions » Didn't rescue workers see dead bodies inside the Pentagon? How do you explain that?

 

[Faun]

So the next chapter we come to in the ever-more-fanciful CIT look into AA77 is the dead bodies of the passengers:

Care to plausibly explained how that was found in the Pentagon?

First of all, what evidence do you have that that photo was taken at the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 occurred? Secondly, what evidence do you have that that was the body of one of AA77's passengers?

Thought we were passed that bullshit…

And what is this "bullshit", my actually questioning evidence you provide? Put another way, you introduce a new piece of evidence, and expect me to just accept it as authentic because you say so?

Okay here are federal exhibits: Surely thats satisfactory….

And another from earlier:

As for being from the flight…few military uniforms have blue and white stripes.

Thank you for providing those pictures. I've traced them back to their site of origin, and I can see that they are from the Moussaoui trial. For those who don't know how to find their source, they are here:
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200047.jpg

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200042.jpg

The Moussaoui trial is something that I have gone over before, possibly with someone in this forum (Faun perhaps), or possibly in another forum I frequent. Essentially, my point was this: while the government provided this evidence, it doesn't specify -who- in the government provided it. This is a problem, as it has been mentioned before that the chain of custody regarding 9/11 evidence has frequently been non existent. What we have above looks to be the charred remains of -someone-, but we have only the government's word that it was photographed at the Pentagon, and who that someone was is unknown, blue and white shirt notwithstanding.

So how do you account for the bodies of civilians being in the Pentagon? Did your shadowy ninja-conspirators re-dress the bodies before planting them????

From CIT's FAQ:
Frequently Asked Questions » Didn't rescue workers see dead bodies inside the Pentagon? How do you explain that?

So the Moussaoui defense was able to get all of the DNA evidence thrown out then, right? After all, according to your continued denials, there's no proof any of it matched any of the passengers from flight #77. Must've been beyond easy to get ALL of that DNA evidence thrown out, right?

 

[phoenyx]

“Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.” - Stephen R. Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change

You have zilch to offer...

Only for those who refuse to listen. If you don't listen, you will never learn.

One can only surmize that you've never listened since you have shown no understanding about what constitutes evidence vs. hearsay, what the commonly accepted thresholds for evidence admission are, and frankly you lack a certain maturity hold your own in a conversation. Certianly you'll bring up insults and profanity and that's cool...but sometimes when someone like you comes around, the best favor you can do for them is to ridicule the ridiculous, tell them they are full of shit, and watch how they react.

Judging from the lack of any successes in 15 years of the existance of the twoofers, one would expect you to be able to deduce how lame your "movement" is for yourself. Since you were not...I don't feel the least bit guilty about illustrating it.

You do fine when you're preaching to your side of the fence, but I haven't seen anyone on -my- side of the fence consider your frequently insulting posts to be persuasive in any respect. In order to persuade someone to a different point of view, you need certain conditions to be met. Here's 4 I thought of just now:
1- Avoid insulting their viewpoint. This tends to get listen to you less, if at all.
2- Understand why they hold their viewpoint.
3- Find information that refutes their viewpoint.
4- Get them to listen to the information.

To give an example, I believe I have gotten Faun to atleast listen to -some- of the information I've provided. His acceptance of Terry Morin's testimony regarding the flight path of the airplane approaching the Pentagon, and his acknowledgement that some of CIT's witnesses also testified shortly after 9/11 is perhaps my greatest achievement in this regard. As to you, I'm not sure you've learned anything from what I've had to say.

There's no point in adhering to any of those points.

If you don't want to actually persuade someone to change their viewpoint, no, ofcourse not -.-...

Twoofers reject reality...

And there you are, starting up with the ad hominem attacks again, sigh -.-. Why do I even bother with essay length ideas on how to further a progressive discussion when all I get in response is this -.-? If your goal is to kill the conversation, keep it up with those ad hominems -.-...

 

[phoenyx]

There's no evidence any plane exploded over the Pentagon.

You may well be right about that. Given the evidence, this leaves only one possibility- that it flew over it. But enough of what I and many others who disagree with the official story believe. What version of the -official- story do -you- believe? Did the aircraft fly according to the NTSB data, the 9/11 Commission data, or actual physical damage path? You can only choose one, as none of these versions concord with each other...

Now you're lying again... flying over the Pentagon is not actually the only remaining possibility.

Do you really think I'm trying to deceive you? It is frequently hard to frame things in such a way that is inclusive of your own beliefs on this matter. I meant given the evidence that -I- believe is real (namely all of CIT's witnesses), this leaves only one possibility. You, ofcourse, only went as far as acknowledging Terry Morin's witness testimony, ignoring almost all the other witnesses who put the plane on a flight path north of the Citgo gas station. I am curious, however, as to what evidence you -do- accept. Is it the physical damage to the light poles and the Pentagon? Or the NTSB flight path data? Or how about the 9/11 Commission report flight path data? You can only pick one, as they all conflict with each other...

Many eyewitnesses saw the plane fly into the Pentagon.

CIT has already gone over most if not all of the verified witnesses who some have claimed witnessed the plane hit the building. Their commentary on the witnesses is worthy of note:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82&st=0

By all means, introduce any witnesses that you believe provide credible evidence that the plane actually hit the building. So long as they actually have a first -and- a last name, I think CIT has already looked into them and is probably on the list linked to above.

I have no desire to bring forward any witnesses. We've, or I, have moved beyond trying to prove anything to you since you're clearly only going to deny anything and everything which doesn't fit into your imagination of what happened. Evidence of this lies in my belief I have absolutely zero doubt that someone who has spent as much time researching this as you say you have, has already seen the witnesses who have stated they saw the plane fly into the Pentagon. So why on Earth would you ask me to show you what you have already seen except to set you up with yet more denials?

Yes, some people -believe- they saw the plane fly into the Pentagon. It certainly flew very close to the Pentagon, but if you were to actually closely examine the testimony from the credible witnesses who've made this allegation as CIT has, you'd see that they placed the plane on a flight path that simply couldn't have caused the damage that the Pentagon sustained. As Sherlock Holmes once said: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".

 

[phoenyx]

Despite the difference in hue, which can be attributed to lighting, the cracks on the walls are identical, the bricks are identical, even some of the debris, like the two white pieces of debris where the line I drew points to, are identical.

And I, ofcourse, am supposed to just trust you on your judgement ? Sorry, but I won't be so accomodating as that. This is all a moot point anyway. Regardless of whether or not the debris in question was photographed at the Pentagon (something which I've seen no evidence for), all of the other factors make it clear that it would have to have been planted evidence.

Well you could convince me you're not crazy if you could post a single piece of evidence that every eyewitness was lying or wrong.

Look, in your world, it may be fine to ask people to prove they're not crazy just because they don't agree with your viewpoint, but it doesn't fly with me. You don't want to introduce any more witnesses (I dealt with the 3 you -did- provide) and you don't want to take a serious look at the ones that CIT has provided other than Terry Morin's. If you're not willing to give your reasons why you -disbelieve- the testimony of all of CIT's witnesses other than Terry Morin's, there's really not much point in this discussion is there? Perhaps you're just looking for an easy way out of this discussion. If that's the case, feel free to leave. You can tell yourself us truthers were being unreasonable, or whatever other reason you want to give yourself.

Or a single piece of evidence that DNA from the bodies recovered didn't actually match passengers recorded on flight #77's manifest.

Your main problem in this discussion is that you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the evidence we have been provided with by the government is highly suspect. The DNA evidence is a very good example. Let's put aside for the moment that there was no chain of custody that I know of with it. I'll quote an excerpt from an article on the subject that I picked up just now (it's so easy to find this information, you just have to know how to google)...
**But the two most pertinent questions and anomalies in regards to the Pentagon and the 'official story' the public has been fed have nothing to do with investigating grand conspiracies or tracking down mis-represented evidence. They have to do with unreasonable suspensions in basic logic. The first is the fact that while almost all the victims of the attack were positively identified through DNA and dental records, we are also told that there is no significant remaining plane debris within the Pentagon because the intensity of the inferno after the crash wholly incinerated the aircraft and its component parts. These are two completely different and irreconcilable narratives.

To be explicitly clear, this is what the public has been told: On one hand, in response to the complaint that there is no verifiable plane debris to positively ID Flight 77, the government claims the fire in the Pentagon was so hot that the virtually indestructible titanium engines were melted, enormous metal wings incinerated, detachable vertical tail fins swallowed whole, seats and luggage consumed, every inch of metal framing obliterated, landing gear gone, a whole enormous Boeing 757 essentially vaporized into molten rubble and dust. And yet that same raging, all-consuming inferno spared enough body parts and DNA of 184 individual human beings made of a carbon based material significantly less rugged than titanium, called skin and bone, somehow survived said firestorm in tact enough for positive identification. How is this possible? And why is no one asking this question and shining light on what should be a most distressing and absurd fabrication?**

Source: The Pentagon | 911hardfacts.com

Or a single piece of evidence that those passengers were killed somewhere else...

I've given quite a bit of evidence on that front, actually. Namely, the tons of evidence that a 757 didn't crash into the Pentagon. I know you don't accept it at the moment though, so we can continue to go over it if you wish. I snipped out the rest of your message, it was mainly insults anyway.

 

[phoenyx]

So the next chapter we come to in the ever-more-fanciful CIT look into AA77 is the dead bodies of the passengers:

Photo by A J

Care to plausibly explained how that was found in the Pentagon?

First of all, what evidence do you have that that photo was taken at the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 occurred? Secondly, what evidence do you have that that was the body of one of AA77's passengers?

It's quite revealing that you trust and respect truth & shadows despite their blatant lies.

Hell, you even posted a monstrous lie of theirs yourself.... quoting you, quoting them...

The hole created in the outer ring of the Pentagon by the supposed impact was less than 20 feet in diameter and was just a few feet above ground level. The upper floors, which should have been hit by the tail section of the plane remained intact.

...that's a bald-faced lie intended to fool gullible Twoofers into believing a 757 could not possibly have crashed into the Pentagon and fit into a 20 foot hole. But the sad reality for truth & shadows, as well as for you.... is that 20 foot hole is not actually on the "outer ring of the Pentagon," as they falsely portay; but actually on the middle ring. Meaning that AA77 traveled through 6 exterior walls of the Pentagon before debris from the plane finally punched that 20 foot hole on the back side of the C-ring. The outer ring of the Pentagon is the E-ring, which had about 75 feet across of damage, not 20 feet as Twoofers lie about.

Again with the "Twoofers" -.-. Not sure if you're referring to when the facade caved in about 20 minutes after the initial explosion at the Pentagon? Most of us weren't at the Pentagon itself, let alone with measuring tape to measure the size of the hole in the first 20 minutes, but there are pictures that have people in it along with the initial damage to the Pentagon that give an idea as to size of the hole. Below is one, complete with a caption:
***

Look at the red image, it is scaled to size, (ACTUALLY EVEN SMALLER) and shows where the impact patterns SHOULD be, yet, there is no damage except a single hole that goes through 3 sections of the pentagon.

This wall collapsed or was brought down by explosives minutes after this picture, which clearly shows inconsistent damage for a Boeing 757.
***

Source: Missile Damage to Pentagon - Unseen Pentagon Fraud Footage? - The 9-11 Events...

The source of this particular photo believes it was caused by a missile, something I'm highly skeptical of, but he certainly agrees with me that it couldn't have been caused by a 757.

 

[candycorn]

So the next chapter we come to in the ever-more-fanciful CIT look into AA77 is the dead bodies of the passengers:

Photo by A J

Care to plausibly explained how that was found in the Pentagon?

First of all, what evidence do you have that that photo was taken at the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 occurred? Secondly, what evidence do you have that that was the body of one of AA77's passengers?

It's quite revealing that you trust and respect truth & shadows despite their blatant lies.

Hell, you even posted a monstrous lie of theirs yourself.... quoting you, quoting them...

The hole created in the outer ring of the Pentagon by the supposed impact was less than 20 feet in diameter and was just a few feet above ground level. The upper floors, which should have been hit by the tail section of the plane remained intact.

...that's a bald-faced lie intended to fool gullible Twoofers into believing a 757 could not possibly have crashed into the Pentagon and fit into a 20 foot hole. But the sad reality for truth & shadows, as well as for you.... is that 20 foot hole is not actually on the "outer ring of the Pentagon," as they falsely portay; but actually on the middle ring. Meaning that AA77 traveled through 6 exterior walls of the Pentagon before debris from the plane finally punched that 20 foot hole on the back side of the C-ring. The outer ring of the Pentagon is the E-ring, which had about 75 feet across of damage, not 20 feet as Twoofers lie about.

Again with the "Twoofers" -.-. Not sure if you're referring to when the facade caved in about 20 minutes after the initial explosion at the Pentagon? Most of us weren't at the Pentagon itself, let alone with measuring tape to measure the size of the hole in the first 20 minutes, but there are pictures that have people in it along with the initial damage to the Pentagon that give an idea as to size of the hole. Below is one, complete with a caption:
***

Look at the red image, it is scaled to size, (ACTUALLY EVEN SMALLER) and shows where the impact patterns SHOULD be, yet, there is no damage except a single hole that goes through 3 sections of the pentagon.

This wall collapsed or was brought down by explosives minutes after this picture, which clearly shows inconsistent damage for a Boeing 757.
***

Source: Missile Damage to Pentagon - Unseen Pentagon Fraud Footage? - The 9-11 Events...

The source of this particular photo believes it was caused by a missile, something I'm highly skeptical of, but he certainly agrees with me that it couldn't have been caused by a 757.

Draw that with your own crayon? A much more accurate picture (that fits in with the physical evidence) and not some mommy’s basement dweller’s wet dream is this:

Here you see where the two engines hit: First on the right you see the generator knocked off it’s moorings. CIT and our new chew-toy Phoenix (aka-shit brains) would have you believe that it was set on fire separately. Notice the gash in the upper left hand corner generator that perfectly coincides with the outside of the starboard engine of a 757 (also known as AA77). The yellow circle shows where the bottom of the port engine clipped the concrete surrounding what looked to be a Helipad outside of the Pentagon.

 

[candycorn]

There's no evidence any plane exploded over the Pentagon.

You may well be right about that. Given the evidence, this leaves only one possibility- that it flew over it. But enough of what I and many others who disagree with the official story believe. What version of the -official- story do -you- believe? Did the aircraft fly according to the NTSB data, the 9/11 Commission data, or actual physical damage path? You can only choose one, as none of these versions concord with each other...

Now you're lying again... flying over the Pentagon is not actually the only remaining possibility.

Do you really think I’m trying to deceive you?

Yes.

 

[Faun]

You have zilch to offer...

Only for those who refuse to listen. If you don't listen, you will never learn.

One can only surmize that you've never listened since you have shown no understanding about what constitutes evidence vs. hearsay, what the commonly accepted thresholds for evidence admission are, and frankly you lack a certain maturity hold your own in a conversation. Certianly you'll bring up insults and profanity and that's cool...but sometimes when someone like you comes around, the best favor you can do for them is to ridicule the ridiculous, tell them they are full of shit, and watch how they react.

Judging from the lack of any successes in 15 years of the existance of the twoofers, one would expect you to be able to deduce how lame your "movement" is for yourself. Since you were not...I don't feel the least bit guilty about illustrating it.

You do fine when you're preaching to your side of the fence, but I haven't seen anyone on -my- side of the fence consider your frequently insulting posts to be persuasive in any respect. In order to persuade someone to a different point of view, you need certain conditions to be met. Here's 4 I thought of just now:
1- Avoid insulting their viewpoint. This tends to get listen to you less, if at all.
2- Understand why they hold their viewpoint.
3- Find information that refutes their viewpoint.
4- Get them to listen to the information.

To give an example, I believe I have gotten Faun to atleast listen to -some- of the information I've provided. His acceptance of Terry Morin's testimony regarding the flight path of the airplane approaching the Pentagon, and his acknowledgement that some of CIT's witnesses also testified shortly after 9/11 is perhaps my greatest achievement in this regard. As to you, I'm not sure you've learned anything from what I've had to say.

There's no point in adhering to any of those points.

If you don't want to actually persuade someone to change their viewpoint, no, ofcourse not -.-...

Twoofers reject reality...

And there you are, starting up with the ad hominem attacks again, sigh -.-. Why do I even bother with essay length ideas on how to further a progressive discussion when all I get in response is this -.-? If your goal is to kill the conversation, keep it up with those ad hominems -.-...

I tried engaging you in reasonable debate. You refuse to post any actual proof whatsoever of anything you claim. So where else is there to go with this debate when I have evidence on my side whereas you have nothing but abject denial on yours?

 

[Faun]

There's no evidence any plane exploded over the Pentagon.

You may well be right about that. Given the evidence, this leaves only one possibility- that it flew over it. But enough of what I and many others who disagree with the official story believe. What version of the -official- story do -you- believe? Did the aircraft fly according to the NTSB data, the 9/11 Commission data, or actual physical damage path? You can only choose one, as none of these versions concord with each other...

Now you're lying again... flying over the Pentagon is not actually the only remaining possibility.

Do you really think I'm trying to deceive you? It is frequently hard to frame things in such a way that is inclusive of your own beliefs on this matter. I meant given the evidence that -I- believe is real (namely all of CIT's witnesses), this leaves only one possibility. You, ofcourse, only went as far as acknowledging Terry Morin's witness testimony, ignoring almost all the other witnesses who put the plane on a flight path north of the Citgo gas station. I am curious, however, as to what evidence you -do- accept. Is it the physical damage to the light poles and the Pentagon? Or the NTSB flight path data? Or how about the 9/11 Commission report flight path data? You can only pick one, as they all conflict with each other...

Many eyewitnesses saw the plane fly into the Pentagon.

CIT has already gone over most if not all of the verified witnesses who some have claimed witnessed the plane hit the building. Their commentary on the witnesses is worthy of note:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82&st=0

By all means, introduce any witnesses that you believe provide credible evidence that the plane actually hit the building. So long as they actually have a first -and- a last name, I think CIT has already looked into them and is probably on the list linked to above.

I have no desire to bring forward any witnesses. We've, or I, have moved beyond trying to prove anything to you since you're clearly only going to deny anything and everything which doesn't fit into your imagination of what happened. Evidence of this lies in my belief I have absolutely zero doubt that someone who has spent as much time researching this as you say you have, has already seen the witnesses who have stated they saw the plane fly into the Pentagon. So why on Earth would you ask me to show you what you have already seen except to set you up with yet more denials?

Yes, some people -believe- they saw the plane fly into the Pentagon. It certainly flew very close to the Pentagon, but if you were to actually closely examine the testimony from the credible witnesses who've made this allegation as CIT has, you'd see that they placed the plane on a flight path that simply couldn't have caused the damage that the Pentagon sustained. As Sherlock Holmes once said: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".

Huh? Which CIT witness said they saw a commercial plane fly over the Pentagon?