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 )

8 Pages V  « < 5 6 7 8 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Roosevelt Roberts Interview, Is this turn possible?

StefanS
post Nov 12 2009, 07:41 AM
Post #121





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 13-August 09
Member No.: 4,544



QUOTE
Why are we providing a platform for this lame semantic BS?


Because this is exactly what we want. We want people who reject solid evidence and research like this, and those who support the factions waging a propaganda war against it, to come to the table and show what they have. Most of them (understandably) don't want to debate it, they want to be able to propagandise against it while silencing dissent to their view. We should applaud Chris for having the guts to come centre stage and show us what he has.

And what does he have?

Roll Up For Chris's Brand New Pentagon Theory:

1. The witnesses in the local area did see the plane fly over the Annex and to the north of citgo.

2. The plane then hit the Pentagon causing no damage whatsoever to the inside of the building and very little to the outside of it, leaving no large debris at all.

3. The powers that be then staged Lloyde's taxi, staged downed light poles and staged a lot of damage inside the building to give the impression that the plane in fact flew on a slightly different flight path.

4. Roosevelt Roberts (and presumably all the people Eric Dihle spoke to) are either insane or liars.

5. Since we are talking about an area of air space from the Navy Annex to the face of the Pentagon, the divergance between these two flight paths brings no benefit to the powers that be. There is no possible gain to them faking it flying south of a gas station rather than north of it, in fact, as has been shown, their staging of these scene is easily rumbled by talking to witnesses as CIT have done.

5. There is no need to explain why they would do this - it's obvious they did because it would be crazy to think the plane didn't hit the building.

6. Flyover theory won't fly!


OK, so now we see what we are dealing with. Let him carry on, give him all the rope he wants and let him do with it what he will. All this does is provide the neutral with some options. We have Legge, Hoffman, Arabesque with the "go back to sleep and don't look at the facts - the boeing hit the pentagon from the south of citgo" theory, we have Chris's "Pointless faking of a slightly different flight path while plane really flew into the building causing virtually no damage" theory, and then we have CIT's theory.

I know which makes sense to me, but it's good to have some options.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StefanS
post Nov 12 2009, 07:47 AM
Post #122





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 13-August 09
Member No.: 4,544



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 12 2009, 05:14 AM) *
You are talking nonsense. What caused this damage, termites?



Are you saying the south approach would make this damage but not the north side approach?

If you are saying that neither path could make this damage then you have just admitted that the CIT investigation did not prove anything you didn't already know about the possibility of flyover.


Ah you've been drinking the "Beautiful Mind" koolaid. It's the power of suggestion Chris.

Take a look at the original photo. Now take a look at your version with the comical coloured lines tracing a plane.

How did the "researcher" responsible for these lines come up with them?

Looking at the naked photo do you really see this pattern of damage? Half of where "damage" has been claimed is obscured by smoke and shadow. This is exactly what popular mechanics did when they claimed that every part of WTC7 that no photograph existed of had been "scooped out" - a claim which didn't make it into the final NIST report on the matter. I wonder if anyone has followed up with them on whether they will release the photos they had of this now the investigation is finished?

A plane shaped series of rectangles is placed over a photo of the pentagon and challenges your mind to agree that it is outlining a damage pattern, which if you look at a photo without the plane silhouette is simply not there.

This post has been edited by StefanS: Nov 12 2009, 07:50 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Nov 12 2009, 02:55 PM
Post #123


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 12 2009, 02:14 AM) *
Are you saying the south approach would make this damage but not the north side approach?

If you are saying that neither path could make this damage then you have just admitted that the CIT investigation did not prove anything you didn't already know about the possibility of flyover.

Don't tell me what I'm saying, Chris, since you are obviously clueless. The CIT investigation proves there are multiple, credible witnesses who saw a plane on a flight path that is not only inconsistent but completely irreconcilable with the physical damage found outside and within the Pentagon. Several of them indicate the plane was banking to the right as it approached. There is absolutely no evidence of an impact by a plane on the NOC approach path and especially not one banking to the right. ZERO. You, on the other hand, are grasping at straws, semantic and otherwise, because you aren't willing to accept that you have nothing and have contributed nothing to our understanding of the events at the Pentagon on 9/11.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Nov 13 2009, 11:45 PM
Post #124





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



HAHA !! nice cartoon there

BTW the 757 tail is 45 feet from the ground.
But not strong enough to break those windows
or leave a mark where you put your imaginary
one.

laughing1.gif



Could you atleast put some imaginary marks on the lawn
to support your theory ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 14 2009, 05:35 AM
Post #125





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 203
Joined: 11-November 06
Member No.: 223



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 10 2009, 09:31 AM) *
Chris, please keep your insulting opinions to yourself. My next reply may not be so polite.

You might mention that to all the posters here who relentlessly engage in personal insults.

QUOTE
Chris, what caused this damage?

As I have said many times, we don't know. I offered a hypothesis that explosives did the damage to the exterior wall and blew the plane to bits. This cannot be ruled out. The damage is there and there is no crater. How do you explain the damage to the wall?

As for the interior damage, your theory requires explosives to do that damage, correct?

CIT claims that the north flight path proves the plane did not hit the Pentagon. This is not correct because it is aerodynamically possible for a plane on the north approach to hit the Pentagon. The explanation seems to be "no plane parts = no plane". That has nothing to do with which approach as it holds true for both approaches.

So how does the north approach prove the plane did not hit the Pentagon?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 14 2009, 05:40 AM
Post #126





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 203
Joined: 11-November 06
Member No.: 223



QUOTE (painter @ Nov 10 2009, 05:55 PM) *
The CIT investigation proves there are multiple, credible witnesses who saw a plane on a flight path that is not only inconsistent but completely irreconcilable with the physical damage found outside and within the Pentagon.


How do you explain the damage to the exterior wall?

How do you explain the interior damage?

This post has been edited by chris sarns: Nov 14 2009, 05:42 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Nov 14 2009, 05:54 AM
Post #127





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



It seems like this is what Roberts means to say:

http://s2.orbitfiles.com/6304407872.jpg?li...b9d594158f2af01
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Nov 14 2009, 05:44 PM
Post #128


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 14 2009, 01:40 AM) *
How do you explain the damage to the exterior wall?

How do you explain the interior damage?


How do you explain no engines? How do you explain virtually no debris at all? How do you explain NONE of it positively identified?

How do you explain 3 steel structures collapsing at near free-fall?

rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Nov 14 2009, 06:52 PM
Post #129





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi Painter and Chris!

1. Painter said:

QUOTE
How do you explain 3 steel structures collapsing at near free-fall?


Quite correct. And at a minimum, AE911T has demonstrated that a CD is the most likely explanation for the 3 WTC collapses (IMHO they do much more than that and actually prove a CD but I'm being generous and using the "most likely" standard for the sake of argument). But once you accept that something is likely wrong at the WTC, it follows that the same is likely true (or again IMHO certainly true) at the Pentagon.

Not quibble with you my friend, but what's important at the WTC is not the free fall itself but what is required to produce a free fall. That requires the (1) simultaneous; (2) symmetrical; and (3) properly sequenced and (4) properly timed removal of of the supporting structure. Those four things can only be achieved through a deliberate plan. A CD is the only known thing that is designed for that purpose. All this together makes any other explanation of the WTC collapses impossible (which is why I say AE911T has proven it).

2. Once you accept the above about the WTC and that there is a rat there, you have to approach the Pentagon thing with the attitude that you are looking for the rat at the Pentagon. Chris doesn't do this. CIT correctly does and through hard work has found a rat. In this case I don't buy the argument that if you start out looking for a rat that initial bias will lead you to certainly find one. That's because there's good reason from the WTC for your initial bias (justifiable suspicion is probably a better word for it).

3. I do see one germ of truth among all the things that Chris says. He seems to point out that CIT's evidence is not direct proof, but only supports an inference, of a fly over, a bomb causing the damage, and one plane. If that's what he's saying I agree with him to a limited extent. The NOC witnesses and Roosevelt do not provide a continuous observation of one plane flying over; instead the NOC people support one plane flying toward the Pentagon, Roosevelt supports one plane appearing on the other side, while all support an explosion. So you start with CIT's evidence as very strong support for that inference. Then the question becomes whether it also supports an inference that there was not a fly over. I am not aware of any other such inference, so the reason I accept CIT's fly over conclusion is the lack of any other explanation that accounts for their evidence. There's a subtle distinction between direct proof and proof by a sound and logical inference that with equal force rules out any other inferences. We have to keep that in mind here.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Nov 14 2009, 06:56 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 14 2009, 11:24 PM
Post #130





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 203
Joined: 11-November 06
Member No.: 223



Chris: How do you explain the damage to the exterior wall? How do you explain the interior damage?

QUOTE (painter @ Nov 12 2009, 08:44 PM) *
How do you explain no engines? How do you explain virtually no debris at all? How do you explain NONE of it positively identified?

How do you explain 3 steel structures collapsing at near free-fall?

That was a non answer. You will not acknowledge this simple fact:

Your flyover theory requires the damage to the Pentagon be caused by explosives.

The lack of plane parts was already known and north/south path makes no difference.

The north path does not prove flyover any more than the south path.

This post has been edited by chris sarns: Nov 15 2009, 11:00 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StefanS
post Nov 16 2009, 05:09 AM
Post #131





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 13-August 09
Member No.: 4,544



[NB. Chris, I withdrew this post as on reflection I felt I was getting irritable in my tone and it wasn't called for, this is the re-write, I think it's a bit clearer now what I'm trying to say. I see you've responded to my previous post already, never mind...]

Chris,

First off, can I thank you for having the stones to actually come and expose your views, most people who reject the fact that the plane cannot have hit the building refuse outright to properly expose their own explanations for the evidence, and prefer to snipe and propagandise from forums they ban all dissenting views from.

Part of the reason they avoid open debate and outlining their own views, is there are few ways to reject this evidence without sounding completely insane.

The most common tack is to deny the witnesses show a north side approach. This obviously leaves very few alternate theories regarding these witnesses. Since the only reasonable explanation for over a dozen people's testimony containing details which confirm one another is that these corroborated details relate to what actually happened, if the theorist wants to reject this clear conclusion they are left with:

1) All these witnesses are agents who are "in on" the cover up and therefore complicit in the attacks of 9/11 and the murder of almost 3,000 people;
2) These people are all mistaken in such a way as to corroborate one another.

Now since one tack is to call innocent people proxy-murderers and the other is to make a statement so out of whack with reality and probability that the proponent of the view would appear to be a lunatic, it is not surprising that the only way the detractors have managed to get anywhere in this "dispute" is to isolate themselves from anyone who disagrees with them and throw mud from afar.

You are a little different and should be given some respect for that, and as frustrating as your merry-go-round logic is, I'm calling on others here now to be patient and civil with you. You have come to debate, and you have avoided the "lunatic" pit-falls by accepting that the plane must have flown north of Citgo. The problem is with your follow up theory.

If I get this right, you are suggesting that the plane did fly from the north path but then drove into the building and at the same time it, and the interior of the building was blown up to create a damage pattern that would suggest it flew in from the south of Citgo. At the same time, the light poles were staged and Lloyde England's taxi was too, just to make sure that everyone thought it came in from the south. Please correct me if I'm getting this wrong...

OK so now we have two competing stories - both include a flight path and damage being faked, but the difference lies in the logic behind staging such a scene or in one case lack of it.

CIT's theory:
The damage was faked to make it appear as though the plane hit the building.

Your theory:
The damage was faked to make it appear as though the plane hit the building from a slightly different angle than it actually did.

Now Chris, I'm not going to say that your theory is inconceivable, but it is so blindly odd that I would require a great deal of evidence to even consider it. You are offering us none.

On the other hand, CIT have provided us not just with Roberts, but also Dihle's audio, the second plane cover story, the E4B, and how press reports based on proven untruths from figures like Wheelhouse could be used to perseude flyover/away witnesses to rationalise away what they witenssed.

In short, the have offered us a theory and done a lot to provide us with evidence in support AND there is actually a point to it.

You are offering us a theory and have presented us nothing to show it did happen AND there is no point to it whatsoever.

If the plane did hit the building, what exactly is the benefit to faking it coming south of a gas station rather than north? Faking an internal NE pattern of damage rather than the south east pattern of damage it would have caused had it not, in your theory, just been blown up?

From the official flight path, it could just as easily have ended up north of the station rather than south. It would be a fine detail that changes nothing fundamental about the gov. claims about where that plane flew in (which CIT have also shown are utterly false). In fact the only thing that shows deception at the Pentagon IS this faked damage! You want us to believe that they gave themselves an achilles heel for no good reason?

Really, put your logic in gear Chris, just for a moment. If the plane had flown from the north path and then hit the building BUT they had not staged the lightpoles or the inversed internal damage - there would be nothing solid for researchers to pick at regarding the Pentagon at all.

If you really believe this - try harder to show us that there is a single reason for us to take it seriously.

Your theory requries me to believe that for no apparent reason they gave the gave the world proof positive of a deception they did not need to carry out.

And it has been exposed; CIT have done the leg work to get out there into the field and bring the evidence back to us. In these circumstances it is not CIT you should be suspicious of, it is the people who seem to have nothing to do with their time but try and convince you to be suspicious of CIT who themselves must have their motives questioned.

This post has been edited by StefanS: Nov 16 2009, 08:04 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 16 2009, 07:33 AM
Post #132





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 203
Joined: 11-November 06
Member No.: 223



QUOTE (StefanS @ Nov 14 2009, 07:09 AM) *
The fact that the damage must have been caused by something other than the plane (explosives/incendiaries/combination/some other material) is pretty obvious.
Incorrect.
The interior damage being caused by explosives does not preclude a plane hitting the building. The damage to the exterior wall could be a combination of explosives and the plane hitting. It cannot be said for certain that a plane did not hit the Pentagon based on the damage.

QUOTE
You're confusing issues, the lack of large parts of airliner debris is not directly to do with flight path but certainly worth considering when judging whether or not a plane hit.
Correct. A lack of parts is a separate matter and applies to the north path as well as the south path.

QUOTE
It's not conclusive but is certainly one aspect that adds weight to the case before even considering witnesses.
Once the witnesses prove that the plane didn't hit, the two evidential issues combine and explain each other.
You are using circular logic. A is true because of B because B is true because of A, and the witnesses are either lying or delusional.

The witnesses did NOT prove that the plane did not hit, quite the opposite, they said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. There is no way they could be deceived about seeing the plane hit the Pentagon.

QUOTE
Everyone here understands perfectly well that the north approach shows the plane did not impact.
How? What is your proof? No plane parts? That has nothing to do with the approach.

P4T proved that a plane on the north path could hit the Pentagon.

The 4 CIT witnesses who could see the Pentagon said it hit the Pentagon.


I'm not saying a plane hit the Pentagon. We wont know for sure what happened until there is a real investigation. I'm only saying that the north path does NOT prove the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

You can talk in circles all you want. Few outside your circle will be fooled and you will only make a fool of yourself with your circular logic and inferring your witnesses are lying or delusional.

These are the tactics of our opponents.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Nov 16 2009, 07:46 AM
Post #133



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,744
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 14 2009, 04:35 AM) *
So how does the north approach prove the plane did not hit the Pentagon?



Chris, the above interior damage angle is not consistent with an aircraft impact from the north approach. If the south path physical damage was staged AND an aircraft hit from the north approach, much more damage to the pentagon would be observed and recorded, and at different angles.

I understand your theory for a lack of damage angle consistent with the north approach is due to the aircraft exploding into millions of pieces just prior to impact? If so, I suppose Craig's question is very valid, where is the crater in the lawn? Also, if it exploded just prior to impact, it did not impact.

Bottom line, the observed aircraft approaching from the North of Citgo did not cause the physical damage observed at the pentagon. The lack of physical damage consistent with a North approach impact angle concludes an aircraft did not impact the pentagon from the North of Citgo. This is why you have zero support for your theory and why even those who support the govt story do not offer such an absurd theory.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StefanS
post Nov 16 2009, 08:15 AM
Post #134





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 13-August 09
Member No.: 4,544



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 16 2009, 06:33 AM) *
Incorrect.
The interior damage being caused by explosives does not preclude a plane hitting the building. The damage to the exterior wall could be a combination of explosives and the plane hitting. It cannot be said for certain that a plane did not hit the Pentagon based on the damage.

Correct. A lack of parts is a separate matter and applies to the north path as well as the south path.

You are using circular logic. A is true because of B because B is true because of A, and the witnesses are either lying or delusional.

The witnesses did NOT prove that the plane did not hit, quite the opposite, they said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. There is no way they could be deceived about seeing the plane hit the Pentagon.

How? What is your proof? No plane parts? That has nothing to do with the approach.

P4T proved that a plane on the north path could hit the Pentagon.

The 4 CIT witnesses who could see the Pentagon said it hit the Pentagon.


I'm not saying a plane hit the Pentagon. We wont know for sure what happened until there is a real investigation. I'm only saying that the north path does NOT prove the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

You can talk in circles all you want. Few outside your circle will be fooled and you will only make a fool of yourself with your circular logic and inferring your witnesses are lying or delusional.

These are the tactics of our opponents.


First:

I'm going to say to you again what I've said before:

Chirs, you have been conned

It is not a "small circle" who understands the implications of CITs work - it is everyone I have shown it to, and outside of a very clique driven collection of websites, everyone in the online community as well.

Yes, there are a small number of people - Arabesque, Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashley, Michael Woolsy, Frank Legge, John Bursil, Adam Larson, Eric Larson and their various (to be charitable) less than bright hangers-on and hero worshippers - who are being extremely vocal in opposition to this research. Since this, in reality, very small group of people have quite a large voice (911 research, truth action, 9/11 visibility, truthmove, and a lot of influence on blogger) they have done quite well to create the appearance of a mass-rejection of this work that weaker minded people will take on face value. Get out into the world and try and find someone who does not get what happened after watching NSA - and I mean non-"truthers" as well as campaigners - you'll find it quite a task. It is clear cut non-ambiguous research. Unless you have a reason not to want to believe it (say, maybe, the knowledge that people you look up to would turn against you if you spoke in support of CIT), and therfore set about creating utterly bizzare replacement theories, it is easy to conclude that the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

Second:

Please look up "circular logic" - it doesn't mean what you think it means.

I was simply saying that while the lack of damage does not prove no plane hit, and does not prove anything about a flight path, it is clearly unusual and is a cause for proper investigation of the case of the Pentagon. When that research turns up the eye witnesses who demonstrate that the plane didn't hit the building, the lack of damage is explained.

Circular logic means assuming your conclusion as part of your argument, that's all.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 16 2009, 09:03 AM
Post #135





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 203
Joined: 11-November 06
Member No.: 223



QUOTE (StefanS @ Nov 14 2009, 10:15 AM) *
First:
I'm going to say to you again what I've said before:
Chirs, you have been conned
Yes, but I got over it when I found out that CIT lied about there being no south path witnesses and claimed there were flyover witnesses when there are none. Leaving out the clear and unequivocal statements by the witnesses who said the plane hit the Pentagon is patently misleading and dishonest.

QUOTE
It is not a "small circle" who understands the implications of CITs work - it is everyone I have shown it to, and outside of a very clique driven collection of websites, everyone in the online community as well.
Where besides here and CIT?

QUOTE
Get out into the world and try and find someone who does not get what happened after watching NSA
CIT misrepresented the evidence and uses circular logic to claim the north path = flyover. They assume their primary witnesses are lying or delusional. When people find out about the lies and deceptions they will change their minds about flyover and CIT.

QUOTE
I was simply saying that while the lack of damage does not prove no plane hit, and does not prove anything about a flight path, it is clearly unusual and is a cause for proper investigation of the case of the Pentagon.
Absolutely.

QUOTE
Circular logic means assuming your conclusion as part of your argument, that's all.
That's exactly what you have been doing.


P4T proved a plane on the north path could hit the Pentagon. There are NO no flyover witnesses. There are 3 CIT witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon and 1 who said it flew into the Pentagon and collided. That witness also said the plane DID NOT FLY OVER the Pentagon. He had a clear view.

CIT has proven beyond a reasonable doubt [if you believe the witnesses] that the plane flew over the Naval Annex and hit the Pentagon.

This post has been edited by chris sarns: Nov 16 2009, 09:17 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StefanS
post Nov 16 2009, 09:34 AM
Post #136





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 13-August 09
Member No.: 4,544



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 16 2009, 08:03 AM) *
Yes, but I got over it when I found out that CIT lied about there being no south path witnesses and claimed there were flyover witnesses when there are none. Leaving out the clear and unequivocal statements by the witnesses that the plane hit the Pentagon is patently misleading and dishonest.


How did CIT "lie"? They produced short films of their ecounters with Lloyde and Wheelhouse and publicised everyone they spoke to who indicated a south path, analsyed their testimony and offered their opinions on it. You might not agree with their analysis of these witnesses, but they certainly did not hide their existence let alone lie about them.

And they didn't "leave out" that Lagasse, Boger and Brookes thought the plane hit the building - they've been explicit about that fact from the start.

QUOTE
Where [do people support CIT] besides here and CIT?


Everywhere, most notably the real world. Besides, people come here because they support this research, they don't support this research because they come here. I was a poster a Truth Action forum when I came to understand the implications of this work.

QUOTE
CIT misrepresented the evidence


How? Every interview they have done is out there for you to look at. If you have an alternate reading to it than they do, you're welcome to express that. From my perspective I think CIT are pretty spot on in their analysis 90% of the time, while you seem to be wildly off the target. But I'm not going to say you're "misrepresenting" as that implies dishonesty, and is therefore an un-called for accusation. Keep it civil.

QUOTE
and uses circular logic to claim the north path = flyover


No, they use logic. Blindingly simple logic which only you seem unable to grasp.

Evidence CIT uncovered:

1. There was undoubtable a large jet plane in the area, flying low towards the Pentagon
2. It was undoubtably on a path completely incompatable with the damage to the lightpoles and the interior of the Pentagon.

CITs conclusions:
1. The plane did not cause the damage, therefore the damage was staged to make it look like the plane did cause the damage.

And at this point you still agree. But CIT concludes:

2. This was because the plane did not hit the building.

Wheras you plump for:

2. This was because they wanted people to think the plane hit the building at a slightly diferent flight path that would make no difference to the official story whatsoever.

Now just based on simple logic CIT's theory is more believable. Beyond this, they have done the leg work to validate this hypothesis with the material regarding Roberts, Dihle, Wheelhouse and the part he played in the "shaddowing plane", the sequestered 9/11 calls. They have put together a body of supporting evidence which they present while they present their hypothesis.

Your theory, by contrast, seems to work on the basis that "it's physically possible, therefore it happened". While the physically possible part can be debated, there needs to be a reason to believe something happened, almost an infinite amount of fantastical and unlikely things are "physically possible" but we don't believe those do we?

QUOTE
and assumes their primary witnesses are lying or delusional.


No. It assumes they were deducing or they were tricked. Neither would be contraversial in any way.

QUOTE
When people find out about the lies and deceptions they will change their minds about flyover and CIT.


Really? What lies? All you are doing is describing your lack of knowledge of the source material as "their lies" - CIT have been explicit and open about Lagasse, Brookes, Boger saying the plane hit. They've presented Roberts as a flyover witness and you say this is a "lie" - but to anyone else it's perfectly clear that this is what he is.

QUOTE
[Making circular arguments is] exactly what you have been doing.


Nope. Saying that one set of evidence (eye witnesses) provides an explanation for another anomaly (lack of damage), which in itself was a cause of investigation, is not circular logic. This is pretty standard investigation.

1. Lack of expected debris from a plane crash suggests there is something unusual and therefore an investiagtion starts.

2. Eye witnesses confirm a flight of the plane incompatable with that damage, demonstrating the plane did not cause the damage.

3. This shows why there is not the expected debris from a plane crash - the plane did not cause the damage in question.

This is a perfectly valid line of investiagtion.

QUOTE
P4T proved a plane on the north path could hit the Pentagon. There are NO no flyover witnesses. There are 3 CIT witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon and 1 who said it flew into the Pentagon and collided. That witness also said the plane DID NOT FLY OVER the Pentagon. He had a clear view.

Yes. But it is perfectly conceivable that they were tricked. Where as your explanation is completely inconceivable.

QUOTE
CIT has proven beyond a reasonable doubt [if you believe the witnesses] that the plane flew over the Naval Annex and hit the Pentagon.

The witnesses cannot be expected to have a good recollection of a part of an event that lasted a second and included a huge explosion and fire ball. Their brains would be scrambled and their reactions coming straight from the "flight or fight" part of the brain. As Boger said - he hit the deck. Lagasse doesn't even know how he found himself ducked into his car, but thats where he was. People are at their least lucid in life-threatening or fear inducing situations.

Again, you are trying to play this like it is a logic puzzle, and this is your problem: We are discussing reality and we include in that human fallibility.

And when I place myself in the situation CIT describes as one witnesses experiencing - I am pretty much 100% certain I would flinch, duck, cover my face at the moment of the explosion and if I looked up and saw no plane, I am also sure I would be adamant that the plane hit the pentagon.

At the same time, I try and place myself in the mind set of the perpertrators carrying out the plan you describe, and it does not make a single bit of sense. I cannot conceive of any logical reason for what you are proposing, and that is a problem.

Since there is no evidence for you theory and plenty for CITs, it's kind of a closed case.

[Edited for clarity. S]

This post has been edited by StefanS: Nov 16 2009, 02:40 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Nov 16 2009, 09:35 AM
Post #137



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,744
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 16 2009, 08:03 AM) *
P4T proved a plane on the north path could hit the Pentagon.



Chris, you keep repeating this as if our objective was to support your theory. Your implication is extremely unwelcome and our objective was nothing of the sort. You are being intellectually dishonest. Consider this your second warning. Your third and we show you the door.

An aircraft can hit the building from ANY approach. The pentagon is a very large building. When you start to consider variables (such as speed, obstacles, topography, type aircraft, damage reported and observed, damage angles... etc) is when the impact theory becomes more and more limited for a specific approach.

What we DID do, is prove the North Approach was aerodynamically possible as observed when taking all witnesses into account. We have also stated it is IMPOSSIBLE for the aircraft observed on the north path to have caused the physical damage as observed and reported at the pentagon.

With that said, simple math and reported damage/angles.. .etc... proves an aircraft did not impact the pentagon from the North Approach.

Now, if you have different reports which are consistent with a North approach impact, please provide them. Until then, there is no physical evidence of a northern approach impact.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chris sarns
post Nov 16 2009, 10:17 AM
Post #138





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 203
Joined: 11-November 06
Member No.: 223



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 14 2009, 09:46 AM) *
Chris, the above interior damage angle is not consistent with an aircraft impact from the north approach. If the south path physical damage was staged AND an aircraft hit from the north approach, much more damage to the pentagon would be observed and recorded, and at different angles.
That is an assumption and I disagree. The plane was only going about 200mph or less. Don't make that claim with out a full impact analysis.

QUOTE
I understand your theory for a lack of damage angle consistent with the north approach is due to the aircraft exploding into millions of pieces just prior to impact?
No, upon impact. This cannot be ruled out.

QUOTE
Craig's question is very valid, where is the crater in the lawn?
I have answered this several times. There were 2 explosions that did the damage to the exterior wall. They did not leave a crater. It makes more sense that the majority of the damage was done by a plane colliding as that would not leave a crater. Flyover requires all the damage is the result of explosives and more likely to leave a crater.

QUOTE
The lack of physical damage consistent with a North approach impact angle concludes an aircraft did not impact the pentagon from the North of Citgo.
No it does not.

Explosives caused the interior damage in your theory. You believe explosives caused the interior damage so the plane on the north path does not have to account for the interior damage.

This post has been edited by chris sarns: Nov 16 2009, 10:26 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Nov 16 2009, 10:31 AM
Post #139



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,744
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 16 2009, 09:17 AM) *
Explosives caused the interior damage in your theory. You believe explosives caused the interior damage so the plane on the north path does not have to account for the interior damage.


Ok Chris, third warning. Enjoy your vacation. When you come back, please read the top of our home page, specifically the underlined sentence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Nov 16 2009, 02:59 PM
Post #140





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



QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 16 2009, 02:17 PM) *
No, upon impact. This cannot be ruled out.


"Upon impact" would mean that the plane would be still outside of the facade as it completely disintegrated from your bombs.
(can bombs even do that? Hmmm maybe they were nano-thermitic bombs specially designed to disappear entire planes rolleyes.gif )

Unless you're suggesting your exotic weaponry bombs didn't detonate (or engage or whatever) until AFTER the entire plane fully entered the building.

Not a reasonable consideration particularly since you are claiming this disintegrating plane would somehow be what caused the hole. (even though everyone who has studied this knows full well the hole only lines up with a south side approach)

It can't cause the hole by not exploding until after it enters and the notion that the impact wouldn't cause your super mega plane disintegrating bombs to detonate is laughable.

QUOTE
I have answered this several times. There were 2 explosions that did the damage to the exterior wall. They did not leave a crater.


Why would bombs inside the building leave a crater outside the building?

That makes no sense.

QUOTE
It makes more sense that the majority of the damage was done by a plane colliding as that would not leave a crater.


In your scenario the plane would have to disintegrate outside of the building at ground level.

This would leave a crater in the ground outside of the building where it disintegrated.

There is no way around it.

Your theory is sheer lunacy and it is entirely proven false by the physical evidence.

This is why nobody (including you) is stupid enough to actually publish an article making such a ridiculous assertion.

QUOTE
Flyover requires all the damage is the result of explosives and more likely to leave a crater.


Listen to yourself!

You are claiming that strategically placed bombs in columns and walls INSIDE the building would be more likely to create a crater outside of the building than an entire disintegrating passenger plane at ground level OUTSIDE of the building would!

You've lost it Sarns.

You have abandoned all logic and critical thinking while sacrificing your credibility as a means to "take one for the team" by attacking CIT.

Pathetic.

The funny thing is that nobody in your team is going to back you on your ridiculous disintegrating plane theory.

They are secretly laughing at you while no doubt encouraging you to continue since it involves attacking CIT.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Nov 16 2009, 03:02 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

8 Pages V  « < 5 6 7 8 >
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: 24th June 2018 - 06:44 PM