IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

6 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Alan Wallace - Pentagon First Responder

shure
post May 2 2010, 04:53 PM
Post #1





Group: Troll
Posts: 224
Joined: 17-October 06
From: Canada
Member No.: 99



I thought some people here might be interested in listening to this phone call with Alan Wallace.

http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpshitout/topic/3269928/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post May 2 2010, 05:19 PM
Post #2





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,020
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



I didn't listen to the audio, but the story there reeks of OCT, another planted witness relating high drama. Sort of an earth bound Scott Beamer.... thumbdown.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post May 2 2010, 06:55 PM
Post #3


dig deeper


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,033
Joined: 16-October 06
From: arlington va
Member No.: 96



jeff, judging by the context of this and the defina interview, it seems your particular line of inquiry is about the "second explosion", yes? if so - i was wonering if you've had a peek at this thread?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17504

-wallace is wrong about it being caused by a plane. that "boom" ruptured from the ground up, not from the sky down. read that thread - i go into more detail about it there.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bobcat46
post May 2 2010, 06:56 PM
Post #4





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 120
Joined: 27-December 06
From: Hobe Sound, FL
Member No.: 382



Well, I listened to it and it is obvious that he did not see the plane hit the building because he was under a van. You're right, Amazed, another planted witness........well, he did work for the DoD.

blahblah1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
shure
post May 2 2010, 08:17 PM
Post #5





Group: Troll
Posts: 224
Joined: 17-October 06
From: Canada
Member No.: 99



Yes paranoid thats a very good thread. I copied it to my Mike Defina thread.

http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpshitout/topic/3240097/

I believe Alan, but you guys are right, technically he didn't see it hit the Pentagon.

Penny Elgas did though:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpshitout/topic/1757591/

So did this mean guy:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpshitout/topic/3269452/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post May 2 2010, 10:36 PM
Post #6





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (shure @ May 3 2010, 01:17 AM) *
I believe Alan, but you guys are right, technically he didn't see it hit the Pentagon.

Penny Elgas did though:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpshitout/topic/1757591/

So did this mean guy:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpshitout/topic/3269452/


Congratulations on obtaining the interview Jeff.

I don't think Alan is a liar either. He only saw the plane for a split second and ran for his life just like anyone would do.

It makes perfect sense that he would be deceived into believing the plane hit and it's also clear that he was influenced by the official flight path very early on in Jan/Feb 2002 when the FBI showed him the flight path animation at the Hoover building.

Deduction and embellishment are very typical eyewitness tendencies which is why corroboration is so important.

But let me ask you Jeff.....do you believe that enough witness evidence has been provided demonstrating that the plane flew on the north side of the gas station? Do you understand the implications of a north side approach?

I was glad to hear you ask Mr Wallace where he saw the plane in relation to the gas station however he made it clear in the beginning of your interview that he first saw the plane over the highway after it had passed that point so naturally he could not know the answer to that question with any degree of certainty.

On the other hand Penny Elgas has always described seeing the plane by the Citgo but unfortunately you failed to ask her the critical question of what side it flew. So whether or not she believes she saw the plane hit, it can not do this from the north side. So I'm really curious about your answers to these questions: Have you seen the north side eyewitness evidence? Are you convinced that enough evidence has been presented proving the plane flew on the north side? If not why? If so do you understand the implications of this?

Thanks for being honest and forthright and thanks for your effort to speak with witnesses directly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post May 3 2010, 12:26 AM
Post #7


dig deeper


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,033
Joined: 16-October 06
From: arlington va
Member No.: 96



hey jeff, no offense, but i hadnt yet expressed any opinion about wallace's overall credibility, so please dont lump me in with "you guys". personally, i do believe wallace's account and find him to be credible, albeit somewhat influenced. by that i mean that after the event he seems to have tried to piece the specifics back together, and it seems the lightpoles (as positioned in the aftermath) played a significant role in his understanding of the event - even though he personally did not see the plane hit these poles. as result of relying too heavily on the location of and condition of the poles as an indicator of "true events", he has come to believe the plane impacted the building. since he was running for his life with his back turned i cant/wont fault him too much for having been fooled.

re: the "2nd" explosion - my guess is that wallace wasnt in a place where he felt or heard it enough to distinguish it from the other stuff going on around him. but it appears he has heard something (perhaps "controversial") about this 2nd explosion and has since attempted to rationalize an explanation for its source. but like with the light poles, he is relying on 2nd (or 3rd or 4th?) hand knowledge of the event and has tried to reverse-engineer how it happened based on various heresay tidbits, and unfortunately has thus come to a flawed conclusion. having experienced the "2nd" explosion first-hand, i can definitively say that the boom did not come from above, no way. but regardless of his and or my understanding/belief about this explosion, i find wallace to be sincere, and i do believe he was attempting to honestly convey to you his understanding of the events (flawed or faulty as they may be) during your interview.


note by the way that between the 18th and 19th minute of your clip he does put the plane directly over and basically north of the citgo. so his recollection of where the plane was matches up with all the other honest witnesses. speaking of which, im not sure i understand what you're contending by posting elgas' and liebner's accounts. are you asserting that the plan DID hit the building? please clarify.


but for the record, elgas ALSO put the plane over the gas station (as did wallace). i examined her account a long time ago so ima bit hazy, but IIRC she was moving away from scene (northbound on washington blvd), so the "impact" point's location, was actually behind her. this means that she was not in a great position to watch the alleged impact in detail. if you have watched the interviews that cit did, where various witnesses to the final path of the plane gave their recollections, and if you are familiar with the approach angle and path of the plane as witnessed and corroborated by said interviewed witnesses) then you understand that the plane started north of elgas, but then was behind her as it flew away, meaning that she assumed an impact had occurred, but her eyes did not get to see the actual impact. besides, as close as she was to where the giant explosion/fireball ignited, all she would have seen is a flash of white, red and orange, along with feeling a massive concussion of energy. so she would no have seen what really happened as a result of this stun-grenade to the 1000th power. in her original account she describes how overcome with adernaline she was and how everything was a blur for a good 20 minutes or so right after what she witnessed (as she drive around aimlessly as if in a dream), so its clear that the explosion must have really shaken her up.


elgas was a civilian, but liebner on the other hand, was and is a career military man. if he did in fact witness what really happened and wasnt fooled, he would be in both a percarious and advantageous position. he'd be doomed if he were to tell the truth, while on the other hand if he shilled on behalf of the official story, could only find gains for himself. but regardless of my suspicions about his would-be motives, liebner actually said the plane was going in between the 2nd and 3rd floors - check the 2nd page of the liebner quotes thread at LCF where his statements are compiled - but his version of the plane's final height is completely irreconcilable with the inches-above-the-lawn official version of events. not only that, but in fact a plane that much higher up "between the 2nd and 3rd floors", is more indicative of a plane in a position to do a flyover (than not), which it did and is the undeniable implication of the given evidence.



***



one last note about wallace's account - his survival added to the description of the specific damage to the firetruck that he relayed way back in his original publised account (on a maryland firefighter's site), imo prove explosives were used inside the building. ive been meaning to update the pentagon damage analysis thread with it, but if you check that thread you will find that 3 different versions of column damage were released by the ASCE. one of them shows a column severed way over to the north of the building, a column isolated and away from all the other plane-damage-mimicking broken and busted columns inside the building, one much too far to have been damaged even by the imaginary wing's reach. the location of this specific lone column, is feet away (tho inside the building) from the back of wallace's firetruck. in his original account wallace attributes his life being saved to the firetruck - its rear specifically - of having taken the brunt of the explosion and having saved his life. in your interview when u ask if he was BEHIND the truck notice the laugh he gives you. thats because he has said himself in the past that if he was behind that truck, he would be a dead man today. so anyway, the ASCE revised their publicly released column-damage reports, and that one column which was severed behind the firetruck, was no longer marked as severed.

but the way his truck was damaged specifically at the rear instead of the side (it became undrivable thanks to a ruptured hydraulic or tranny line according to wallace), added to the existence of this lone severed column inside the building, is evidence that a massive explosion took place there, one that could not have been caused by "the airplane".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
shure
post May 3 2010, 10:32 AM
Post #8





Group: Troll
Posts: 224
Joined: 17-October 06
From: Canada
Member No.: 99



Sorry paranoid, it wasn't my intention to include you in "you guys". Thanks for the info! Yes, at this point I do believe people saw a "plane" impact the Pentagon. By the sounds of it, do I understand you were there that day?

This post has been edited by shure: May 3 2010, 10:35 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
shure
post May 3 2010, 10:33 AM
Post #9





Group: Troll
Posts: 224
Joined: 17-October 06
From: Canada
Member No.: 99



Craig,

I could call Penny back and ask her which side of the gas station. What else should I ask her?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 3 2010, 11:43 AM
Post #10





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095





Hey Jeff, I wouldn't go patting myself on the back just yet mate.

I'd like to see Craig's points answered.
I've a lot of respect for what you've done man, but why are you so intent on "debunking" CIT's work when they have used the same methods as you? And have done so in a transparent way?
I mean, they show all their interviews on record with the NOC witnesses.
Impact is impossible from NOC. Fact. Or do you have a 'theory'?

There is a video interview with the 'mean' Liebner guy which actually shows him penning the route he saw the plane take. NOC.

Penny Elgas's description of the approach of the plane totally contradicts any "impact" theory.
Her intense 2 thousand(?) word description logically and physically defies the FDR data which points to the plane being in that basin of land for 3.5 seconds. 1.3 seconds from lightpole 1 to the Pentagon.
Allegedly 8/10ths of a second for the plane to 'penetrate' the full distance to the "punch-out" hole.

Whether you believe a flyover or not, the NOC evidence at LEAST provides a means by which a false flag op can be proven. Whether it be the lightpoles being planted and the subsequent damage being staged, or the FDR being faked, that the entire Official Narrative is bullshit on this evidence.

That you are intent on "proving" the existence of 'SOC' witnesses or "impact witnesses" confuses the crap out of me. If you DO cast enough doubt on this evidence that, unless fully researched by newcomers or people who are sitting on the fence on this subject and are influenced by the pathetic rumour and disinfo campaign initiated by the 'cred police' at various "Truther sites", it will prolong the debate but will NEVER 'win out' against this evidence. What next?

Should we just forget about the entire Pentagon 'saga'? Is that what you want? What is plan 'B'?
Have you done anything to positively identify what happened at the Pentagon or are you just going to fall into line with the other dinosaurs?

I remember you always said "check everything" or words to those effect. I've went over CIT's work with a fine tooth comb. I mean, waaay over the top digging into ALL witness accounts to the point where I believe I have tired OTHER people out (lol) with incessant questions.

NOBODY contradicts NOC.
NOC plus impact are impossible.
WHY was the damage staged if not to facilitate a flyover?
Why not concentrate on this aspect even if you don't believe there was a flyover (which there had to be)?

edit:typo

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: May 3 2010, 11:44 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ligon
post May 3 2010, 12:38 PM
Post #11





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 83
Joined: 2-March 09
Member No.: 4,182



QUOTE (onesliceshort)
Hey Jeff, I wouldn't go patting myself on the back just yet mate.

I'd like to see Craig's points answered.


Me too. Here they were again, Jeff...

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT)
But let me ask you Jeff.....do you believe that enough witness evidence has been provided demonstrating that the plane flew on the north side of the gas station? Do you understand the implications of a north side approach?

[...]

Have you seen the north side eyewitness evidence? Are you convinced that enough evidence has been presented proving the plane flew on the north side? If not why? If so do you understand the implications of this?


This post has been edited by Ligon: May 3 2010, 12:38 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
shure
post May 3 2010, 01:54 PM
Post #12





Group: Troll
Posts: 224
Joined: 17-October 06
From: Canada
Member No.: 99



I was thanking debs for the compliment! Just because other people post stuff on my forum doesn't mean I believe it. I have seen all the evidence for all the issues and haven't made up my mind yet as to what I believe about anything.

This post has been edited by shure: May 3 2010, 01:55 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ligon
post May 3 2010, 03:05 PM
Post #13





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 83
Joined: 2-March 09
Member No.: 4,182



QUOTE (shure @ May 3 2010, 01:54 PM) *
I was thanking debs for the compliment! Just because other people post stuff on my forum doesn't mean I believe it. I have seen all the evidence for all the issues and haven't made up my mind yet as to what I believe about anything.


Really? Then why did you just say this?

"Yes, at this point I do believe people saw a "plane" impact the Pentagon"

Are you saying they may be wrong about the impact, or do you believe they really did see that happen?

When you say you've "seen all the evidence for all the issues and haven't made up my mind yet as to what I believe about anything" does that mean you don't know if the plane has to be on the south side of the station to have caused the physical damage, starting with the light poles?



Much more here:
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/fa..._plane_hit.html

Here is a link to "NORTH APPROACH IMPACT ANALYSIS" by FAA Certified Pilot Rob Balsamo, who as you know runs this forum.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/North-Approac...t-Analysis.html

Here is the conclusion:

QUOTE
"It is impossible for any fixed-wing aircraft to cause the directional physical damage to the light poles, generator trailer, and the Pentagon leading to the C-ring hole approaching from directly over the Navy Annex and north of the former Citgo gas station. The flight paths illustrated by the witnesses would require G forces beyond the physical limitations of any aircraft for it to transition to an approach that lines up with the physical damage. Additionally, a hypothetical least challenging scenario at low speed would require bank angles that are irreconcilable with the physical damage, as well as the witness statements, and require an instantaneously performed roll that is impossible for any fixed-wing aircraft.."


So you're saying that you "haven't made up your mind" as to whether or not that's true? Even though the veracity of his calculation, analysis, and conclusions are backed up by Captain Jeff Latas, who "spent over 20 years in the United States Air Force, and his exemplary military record includes nearly 5000 hours in fighter aircraft, the Distinguish Flying Cross for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals", and Commander Ralph Colstad, "who has logged 23,000 of flight time, spent over 20 years in the US Navy flying fighters off of aircraft carriers, achieving TopGun twice, spent 13 years flying Boeing 757/767, mostly as an international captain for American Airlines, and has command time in tail number N644AA, the very plane dispatched as American 77"? Even though it's not contested even by hardcore CIT haters like Jim Hoffman, the anonymous, apparently-retired disinfo agent "Arabesque", Adam Larson aka Caustic Logic, etc?

The only person who has ever even tried to contest this was a member of your forum who was clearly not doing it in good faith or with any honesty but rather in an attention-seeking attempt to "glory [himself], after all those nights lost to research" which blew up in his face when P4T swiftly debunked him with that paper, and whose "theory" was DOA anyways beacuse it totally, knowingly, and purposely ignored witnesses further back on the flight path.

But you "haven't made up your mind"? (Serious question)

Here's another question Jeff, since you claim to be undecided about literally everything even though you also just said that you "believe people saw a 'plane' impact the Pentagon":

You talked to Alan Wallace for 57 MINUTES. You talked to him about the light poles for a number of minutes during the course of that conversation. We ALL know there were light poles down. The relevant question is OBVIOUSLY whether or not he personally literally SAW the plane hit the light poles, or just saw them down later. In 57 minutes I don't believe you EVER asked him that. Why? (If you did please tell me when and I will retract this)

Why haven't you made up your mind about the north side approach? In saying that you " haven't made up [your] mind yet as to what I believe about anything" you are saying that as of right now you it's possible that Sgt. Lagasse, Sgt. Brooks, Roberts Turcios, William Middleton Sr., Darius Prather, Donald Carter, Terry Morin, Edward Paik, Maria De La Cerda, George Aman, Levi Stephens, and Sean Boger, etc. are all incorrect in the same way about which side of the gas station it flew on, which they independently confirm.







You are literally saying that you don't know if these people are correct about which side of the gas station the plane flew even though Lagasse, Brooks, and Turcios were in the best locations out of the entire witness pool to answer the question - a location which makes it virtually impossible for ANY one of them to get it incorrect. The notion that all three are independently incorrect in the same way is absurd. Do you disagree?

Lagasse says he is "100 percent" sure it was on the north side and would "bet [his] life on it". Brooks literally laughs at the notion that the plane was on the south side. Turcios also says that he was 100% sure.



Furthermore, I will say the same thing to you that I said to Ronald Wieck: Out of all of the known witnesses, I contend that witnesses who were in or immediately outside of the ANC maintenance buildings and Sean Boger are the witnesses in the next best locations to be able to judge which side of the gas station the plane flew with accuracy. Do you disagree? If so, who was in a better position than them (besides the Citgo witnesses)? If not, then you are refusing to accept what is said by the witnesses who, out of the entire known witness pool, were in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eight best positions to judge where the plane flew in relation to the gas station with regard to the question of which side of the gas station the plane flew, despite the fact that you are positioning yourself as someone who is trying to get at the truth of what happened via the witnesses.

Even Penny Elgas who you personally interviewed told you the same thing. She has the plane has plane banking, places it 50-80 feet above ground over highway just before the alleged impact (too high to cause damage), and did not see plane hit light poles despite being just a short distance back on the highway

Do you understand that the plane can't be banking after the Citgo (where elgas picked it up) if it was on the required official souths side flight path?

Furthermore if you read her original account it's clear that she has been north side since day one. She picked up the plane "to the side of" the Citgo "coming straight at" her "from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road she was on)". That is total north side if you look at the part of Columbia Pike that she is referring to, which is the part from the Citgo on which "runs perpendicular" to Rt. 27, not the part before that.




What more will it take for you to "make up your mind" Jeff?

Even your boy Lincoln Liebner, "an executive support officer at the Pentagon, the voice at the other end of the line when someone important - President Bush or National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice - needed to talk with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld at 4 in the morning or overseas somewhere", has the plane coming perpendicular to the building, which is total north side and NOT consistent with his claims that it hit the building.



Hell even Mike Walter has it banking on the north side, nowhere near the light poles or where it had to be to hit the building.


[img]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/walter-NoC.gif[/img]

Please don't give a one or two sentence response to this Jeff. This is deadly serious and demands a thorough, thoughtful response. It cannot be brushed off by you since you are positioning yourself as someone who is trying to get at the truth of what happened via the witnesses. Please answer my questions. ETA: And the questions others have asked/will ask.

This post has been edited by Ligon: May 3 2010, 03:39 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 3 2010, 06:20 PM
Post #14





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



C'mon Shure at least acknowledge that you are going to answer one of the posts above.
It's the least you can do man.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post May 4 2010, 05:08 PM
Post #15





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 844
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



Topic moved to Pentagon Section as too important to be allowed to be hidden in the Lobby.

KP
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 4 2010, 05:55 PM
Post #16





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (shure @ May 3 2010, 03:33 PM) *
Craig,

I could call Penny back and ask her which side of the gas station. What else should I ask her?


How about phoning Alan Wallace back and asking him why the rest of people within that area witnessed a totally different flightpath? Specifically Sean Boger? He was in the heliport just metres away to the right of Alan Wallace's POV.



Here's an image of the other side of the Turcios "do not enter" sign north of the bridge. Note how it does say "Pentagon south parking" as noted by Alan Wallace:



Plus he said the plane was north of the overpass:

QUOTE
And it would be to the north of the, of the br-- the over-- overpass, or underpass. And if you put one end of the straight edge just about, just about to the center of the, uh, length of the west wall of the Pentagon. And put the other e-- uh, and put part of the straight edge back, back to the southeast, southwest, or, or, west, and put it, just to the north of the overpass, that is the path of the airplane. Cause when we saw it-- when I, when I first saw it, it was right o-- it was right in front of those big, uh, freeway signs there that say Pentagon south parking.


I'm not suggesting for one minute that Mr. Wallace was "in on it", he sounds like a very affable guy, but he is on record as Ligon stated, as being shown the "official path" repeatedly by the FBI.
You of all people should know how these aholes work.

You released a video before of an interview with a guy who claimed to have seen a "wing wedged in a doorway" after the WTC impacts, while INSIDE the building. It was rightly claimed that this was a physical impossibility or that he was a plant.

Impact from NOC (I'm as tired of saying this as many are of reading it) is a physical impossibility too.
What's the difference between the two scenarios?

Liebner, who you presented as an "impact witness", IMO falls into the latter category or was at LEAST used willingly as a pawn.

HE even points to an NOC approach.

His story has changed numerous times as and when it suits.
Even Wallace denies Liebner's claim that he helped "push him through a window"!

I'm not trying to browbeat you into an answer man, but do you think it's right to leave everybody here with their thumb up their ass?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
shure
post May 5 2010, 08:31 AM
Post #17





Group: Troll
Posts: 224
Joined: 17-October 06
From: Canada
Member No.: 99



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 3 2010, 11:20 PM) *
C'mon Shure at least acknowledge that you are going to answer one of the posts above.
It's the least you can do man.


onesliceshort, I'm still looking over the videos and other information before I respond to you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 5 2010, 10:21 AM
Post #18





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (shure @ May 5 2010, 02:31 PM) *
onesliceshort, I'm still looking over the videos and other information before I respond to you.


Appreciated. Cheers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ligon
post May 5 2010, 07:41 PM
Post #19





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 83
Joined: 2-March 09
Member No.: 4,182



QUOTE (shure @ May 5 2010, 08:31 AM) *
onesliceshort, I'm still looking over the videos and other information before I respond to you.


??

What about my post? (this one)

It's been over 48 hours since I posted that and you haven't even so much as acknowledged (like you just did with onesliceshort) let alone responded to it.

I have seen you looking at this thread multiple times though since I posted it, including shortly after I first posted it. I think oneslice saw it to at that time and that's why he said "C'mon Shure at least acknowledge that you are going to answer one of the posts above. It's the least you can do man."

That was on May 3rd and you didn't respond to any of us until today, May 5th (and again you obviously didn't respond to or even acknowledge my post).

Your excuse (to oneslice) that you are "still looking over the videos and other information before I respond" totally contradicts your assertion earlier in this thread that you have "seen all the evidence for all the issues"

Yes, at this point I do believe people saw a "plane" impact the Pentagon.
- shure, May 3

I have seen all the evidence for all the issues and haven't made up my mind yet as to what I believe about anything.
- shure, May 3 (three hours later)

I'm still looking over the videos and other information before I respond to you.
- shure, May 5 (two days later)

Here again is my post that with a number of very fair and extremely important questions that I asked you nicely to please respond to over two days ago.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10785204

As I said: Please don't give a one or two sentence response to this Jeff. This is deadly serious and demands a thorough, thoughtful response. It cannot be brushed off by you since you are positioning yourself as someone who is trying to get at the truth of what happened via the witnesses. Please answer my questions.

I should add: Please just answer the questions directly and honestly right now as opposed to stalling for days and days since you claimed that you already "have seen all the evidence for all the issues".

This post has been edited by Ligon: May 5 2010, 07:44 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ligon
post May 11 2010, 12:27 AM
Post #20





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 83
Joined: 2-March 09
Member No.: 4,182



Just for the record it's been a week and counting now since I made my first post and 5 days since my last one.

I take this grave subject very seriously as do many others here. The fact that you were unable/unwilling to respond to my post speaks volumes Jeff.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd January 2019 - 04:45 AM