IPB




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

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

11 Pages V  « < 6 7 8 9 10 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Jesse Ventura Speaks With Pilots For 9/11 Truth, The Pentagon

Rating 5 V
 
amazed!
post Dec 27 2010, 10:52 AM
Post #141





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,886
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



I'm glad you survived! thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
realitycheck77
post Dec 28 2010, 11:09 AM
Post #142





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 70
Joined: 25-December 08
Member No.: 4,042



At the start of the program he says its time people 'get the whole story'. The program unfortunatley only told half the story and even told that in a distorted misleading way. The big mystery that the program was supposed to be dealing with was 'what hit the Pentagon' but the program managed to go from start to finish without an account from one of the eyewitnesses who say a large airliner crashed into the builiding , or without even mentioning the fact that they exist. Anyone watching the program who wasn't familiar with the event would imagine there were no eyewitnesses, apart from April Gallop who was inside the building when it happened. That is obfuscation of evidence amounting to deception. The program is called 'Conspiracy Theory' so the idea seems to be that they can present all of the 'conspiracy' stuff, that suggests one version of events, or rather any versions that contradicts 'what we were told' but nothing that might contradict it or spoil the 'conspiracy' stuff. All of that is dressed up with spooky music and meetings in dimly lit back lots and greasy diners -which is reasonable if you are making a 'conspiracy' TV show but even that is giving a false impression to people , that the people they are meeting are 'on the run' and half afraid to talk etc. They don't seem to think though that they are under any obligation to present 'the whole story' at all or even inform people that it exists.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
realitycheck77
post Dec 28 2010, 11:42 AM
Post #143





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 70
Joined: 25-December 08
Member No.: 4,042



QUOTE (aerohead @ Dec 18 2010, 12:47 PM) *
The only thing i was disappointed about was that they didnt
show (atleast i think they didnt) the actual hole in the Pentagon
just after the initial explosion and before the implosion? Does anyone
have a correct picture of the hole they could post ?
I think it would help first time viewers understand why their is so much
controversy over the official account of a plane actually hitting the Pentagon.

Correct me if im wrong, but i believe it was 13 FT in diameter ?
Windows still intact where the vertical stab and wings/engines would have hit ?



The tail of a plane is not vertical so if the tail of a plane hit a reinforced concrete floor edge on , the damage it seems to me would be unlikely to proceed vertically very high before the tail itself, made from far less durable material ,was obliterated. It would be like a plane flying at high speed under a highway overpass.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 28 2010, 12:01 PM
Post #144



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,602
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



RC77,

There is only so much you can fit in an hour show with commercials. We had hoped many witnesses would be covered, and they were aware of the witnesses interviewed, especially those who were confirmed on location and place the aircraft opposite the physical damage.

I suppose the real question is, why does the rest of mainstream media have a virtual blackout regarding the large and growing list of Family members, experts, and data?

http://patriotsquestion911.com

Conflicting Data, Hardcore Questions and the Media Blackout
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/media_blackout022908.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Dec 28 2010, 01:36 PM
Post #145





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Rob,

I see the issue as opening a crack in a dam which will not be a trickle but will breech the dam. An honest investigation / investigator keeps following leads and connects dots. If you don't ask questions you don't get answers. There had been a huge effort to avoid an honest discussion of 9/11 because it would reveal too many inconvenient truths and the dam would burst.

Then "they" have to do something or nothing. Look at the run up to the Iraq war. There was all sorts of fake evidence and BS flooding the media and manufacturing consent. Some people cried fowl and were ignored. We invaded nevertheless.

All the cassis belli turned out to be lies: uranium yellow cake, anthrax (Colin Powell UN show), centrifuge tubes, WMDs of course and Sadam's connection to AQ. The reason was then to promote democracy and rid that nation of a murderous despot. We killed hundreds of thousands and destroyed the country in doing so... and secured their oil reserves and passed out huge no bid contracts to our MIC to get the job done. Did anyone pay a price for all the lies? Was there any accountability? Did we walk back the policy? Did we pay reparations to the Iraqis and get out of their country?

If what happened leading up the war including all the events to the present is an indication of what to expect from a 9/ll accountability moment - there will be none..And Obama has declared we are looking forward and not back. He might have been told to say that (or else). Whomever did 9/11 has no problem with murder and even mass murder and this is not something that anyone doesn't understand. Call it intimidation if you like. It will take some hefty ones to take those killers on. There's nothing they wouldn't do and apparently can buy off anyone (in the government or media) with cash or silence them with intimidation. And those outside are simply ridiculed as nuts.

But once the dam really cracks a flood will ensue.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
realitycheck77
post Dec 28 2010, 04:40 PM
Post #146





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 70
Joined: 25-December 08
Member No.: 4,042



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 28 2010, 12:01 PM) *
RC77,

There is only so much you can fit in an hour show with commercials. We had hoped many witnesses would be covered, and they were aware of the witnesses interviewed, especially those who were confirmed on location and place the aircraft opposite the physical damage.

I suppose the real question is, why does the rest of mainstream media have a virtual blackout regarding the large and growing list of Family members, experts, and data?

http://patriotsquestion911.com

Conflicting Data, Hardcore Questions and the Media Blackout
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/media_blackout022908.html



There is a limit to what can be presented in a TV show but if the central question of it is 'what hit the Pentagon' then presenting the accounts of eyewitnesses to the event , or even informing the viewers that there were eyewitness to it- and that they unanimously say a large airliner crashed into the builidng- that should be included in any program that calls itself an investigation , especially when the host says he is going to give viewers the whole story and that his bottom line is the truth.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 28 2010, 04:48 PM
Post #147



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,602
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (realitycheck77 @ Dec 28 2010, 03:40 PM) *
There is a limit to what can be presented in a TV show but if the central question of it is 'what hit the Pentagon' then presenting the accounts of eyewitnesses to the event , or even informing the viewers that there were eyewitness to it- and that they unanimously say a large airliner crashed into the builidng- that should be included in any program that calls itself an investigation , especially when the host says he is going to give viewers the whole story and that his bottom line is the truth.


I agree. I wish Jesse would have covered Sgt Lagasse, Brooks, and the others who "bet their life" on the fact the aircraft approached opposite the physical damage.

So why exactly does CNN, Fox News and other MSM news outlets promote an animation constructed by a DOD Contractor, an animation which doesnt include any data whatsoever, and neglects to cover the animation provided by the NTSB based on the alleged Flight Data Recorder?

This is unprecedented.

Jesse had less than an hour.

CNN, Fox and others have had almost 10 years.

Why exactly have they not covered the NTSB animation and instead chose to cover an animation which was completely fabricated? Why do they neglect to cover the growing list of professionals and experts who have uncovered fatal flaws in the govt data? Why have they neglected to cover witnesses like Sgt Lagasse who "bets his life" on the fact the aircraft was on an approach which was physically impossible to cause the physical damage?

Why has the FBI refused to positively identify the aircraft wreckage?

Why do you avoid these questions?

Let me guess, you didnt bother to click the links you replied to?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
realitycheck77
post Dec 28 2010, 08:36 PM
Post #148





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 70
Joined: 25-December 08
Member No.: 4,042



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 28 2010, 03:48 PM) *
I agree. I wish Jesse would have covered Sgt Lagasse, Brooks, and the others who "bet their life" on the fact the aircraft approached opposite the physical damage.

So why exactly does CNN, Fox News and other MSM news outlets promote an animation constructed by a DOD Contractor, an animation which doesnt include any data whatsoever, and neglects to cover the animation provided by the NTSB based on the alleged Flight Data Recorder?

This is unprecedented.

Jesse had less than an hour.

CNN, Fox and others have had almost 10 years.

Why exactly have they not covered the NTSB animation and instead chose to cover an animation which was completely fabricated? Why do they neglect to cover the growing list of professionals and experts who have uncovered fatal flaws in the govt data? Why have they neglected to cover witnesses like Sgt Lagasse who "bets his life" on the fact the aircraft was on an approach which was physically impossible to cause the physical damage?

Why has the FBI refused to positively identify the aircraft wreckage?

Why do you avoid these questions?

Let me guess, you didnt bother to click the links you replied to?



It takes ten seconds to say there are scores of witnesses who said an American Airlines plane crashed into the building and with time taken up with things like April Gallop talking about being told in hospital a plane crashed into the buliding or a pointless interview with a commission lawyer, I don't think that is really an excuse.
The Pentagon police officers also said the plane crashed into the building, as did every one of the other people in a position to see it. Mr Turcios said he didn't see the impact because it dropped down and his view was obstructed. He could see the roof line of the building ; if the plane flew over the building then it would never drop down below the roof line of the building or to be obscured by the road or anything else - look at the animation that you produced yourselves.
The bodies of the passengers of Fl77 were recovered and identified.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Dec 28 2010, 09:00 PM
Post #149





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



QUOTE (realitycheck77 @ Dec 28 2010, 02:36 PM) *
The bodies of the passengers of Fl77 were recovered and identified.

It takes about 10 minutes to do your home work...


Human remains of the people were identified at Dover, but there is no public evidence that places the bodies at the Pentagon crash site.

Victim Compensation Fund average $1.8 million per claim

Flight 77: of the 64 people who are listed as dying on this flight, only 14 are listed in the SSDI (22%)...as dead

Of these 64 people, only five on the 9-11 Compensation Fund list file for a claim: ONLY FIVE...DAH...who would turn down nearly 2 million dollars?

William Caswell
Eddie Dillard
Ian Gray
John Sammartino
Leonard Taylor

This post has been edited by elreb: Dec 28 2010, 09:04 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nan4848
post Dec 28 2010, 09:17 PM
Post #150





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 6
Joined: 1-July 09
Member No.: 4,451



QUOTE (realitycheck77 @ Dec 28 2010, 02:40 PM) *
There is a limit to what can be presented in a TV show but if the central question of it is 'what hit the Pentagon' then presenting the accounts of eyewitnesses to the event , or even informing the viewers that there were eyewitness to it- and that they unanimously say a large airliner crashed into the builidng- that should be included in any program that calls itself an investigation , especially when the host says he is going to give viewers the whole story and that his bottom line is the truth.


The Ventura show is an investigation into the allegations of conspiracies. In this episode, it is an investigation into the allegations of groups who don't believe the official theory that every American already knows. Considering the time constraints, why waste time repeating the lie every American was indoctrinated with by the corporate/military controlled MSM starting before 9/11?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Dec 28 2010, 10:04 PM
Post #151





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



Hi Realitycheck77!

I.
QUOTE
The Pentagon police officers also said the plane crashed into the building, as did every one of the other people in a position to see it. (My emphasis added)


I agree that there are many witnesses who claim to have "seen" the impact. But if you read their accounts, the vast majority say they saw the plane flying low and then very shortly after heard the explosion, which lead them to the not unwarranted deduction that the plane hit the Pentagon even if they did not actually see the impact. There are two keys: (a) whether, as you say and I emphasize in your quote, they were in a position to see the impact; and (b) whether they thought there was any reason to note and follow the plane at all, let alone look for an impact.

As to whether they were in a position to see, you have to walk the ground and appreciate the way the elevated highways, terrain,buildings, and vegetation obstruct most vantage points and cut off views of the building. Then you have to plot where they say they were and account for how these factors may have severed their view so they saw the plane approaching but could not see whether or not it struck.

As to whether they would care to follow a low flying plane, you have to observe planes using the north landing approaches for DCA. They routinely fly low almost over the Pentagon. Thus a low flying plane near the Pentagon in and of itself is not remarkable, so a witness would have much less reason to pay particular attention to where one was going, even if f they saw it flying low and descending near the Pentagon.

Once you run the witness accounts through these two filters, the list of qualified actual impact witnesses seems to shrink from more than 100 to two or three at best. Then you have to weigh those few "impact" accounts that remain against the inconsistent "Government's Own" FDR data that PFT has evaluated as either placing the plane too high or being inconsistent with what an FDR recorder would show if it was recovered from the ground elevation of the floor of the Pentagon.

Next is the question of how many of the more than 100 witnesses unequivocally place the plane on the Official Government Supporter South Path. None of those witnesses can say that the plane was on that Path, while more than 10 CIT witnesses unequivocally say it was on the North Path. Then the Official Government FDR and Radar Data tends to support the North Path. However, the North Path is at best inconsistent with, but more likely renders impossible, government accounts of the damage to the building and its surrounding structures.(2) So again you have to weigh the few remaining "impact" witness accounts against that.

Finally, there are two other things that PFT has developed that you have to weigh. First, the "Government's Own" FDR data as a whole is internally inconsistent in several ways. Second, even if you view the FDR data in the light that is most favorable to the Government, striking the building was aerodynamically impossible even for a skilled 757 pilot, let alone Uncredentialled, Inexperienced, Unfamiliar With Anything Near A 757 Government Claimed Pilot Hani Hanjour.(2)


II.
QUOTE
The bodies of the passengers of Fl77 were recovered and identified.


I for one have never seen any Official Government Pathological Data And/or Evidence establishing this, let alone satisfactory Data and Evidence. It's easy to just say this, but the hard part is providing Data and Evidence supporting that claim. One has to wonder why the Government has failed to provide such support if is actually has it in hand, even for the simple purpose of squelching the questions that have been raised about that claim.

In a similar vein, other Forensic Evidence that one would expect the Government to have and release does not appear to exist. By this I mean, for example: (a) plane parts associated by serial number with the claimed aircraft; and (b) other Forensic Investigation normally conducted for any air disaster; and © videotape from the 10 or so surveillance cameras that perhaps were in a position to record what actually occurred.

_____________________________
(1) Moreover (this is my own opinion) the Government has never officially and expressly claimed that the plane took Any Specific Path, North or South or In Between - the South Path was developed by those wishing to support the Government. The Government itself is reluctant to officially and expressly adopt the South Path because as PFT and CIT have shown, the FDR and Radar Data, and North Path eyewitness accounts, obviously belie it.

(2) How in the hell is the government so sure that Hani was the pilot.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Dec 28 2010, 10:08 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 28 2010, 11:28 PM
Post #152



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,529
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (Adam Larson)
It takes ten seconds to say there are scores of witnesses who said an American Airlines plane crashed into the building and with time taken up with things like April Gallop talking about being told in hospital a plane crashed into the buliding or a pointless interview with a commission lawyer, I don't think that is really an excuse.


We know what your true feelings are towards April Gallop don't we?


http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2007/...masterlist.html

QUOTE
46 - April Gallop: Worked at the Pentagon, says "I was there and I never saw a plane or even debris from a plane. I figure the plane story is there to brainwash people." Says she had agents intimidate her into confirming a plane. Honegger cited Gallop's wristwatch stopping at 9:32 am on 9/11 as proof that a (watch-stopping?) bomb at that time was responsible for the Pentagon attack. Thanked in the cerdits of the PentaCon ("for makin' it!") (Up?)


So far the NOC witnesses are cointel and April Gallop is a liar? Am I right so far?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Dec 29 2010, 12:42 AM
Post #153





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 892
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



Adam Lawson is obviously deeply ignorant about the forces he is up against.

If he had any intelligence of worth, he would have given up long time ago, but alas!

Here is the transcendental worlds completely lucid and rational explanation as to what

witnesses would have experienced at the pentagon.

It's the last part which is fundamental to understanding what took place in the mind

of the witnesses, but i include the first larger part so this will better be understood -

perhaps even by a 'caustic illogicality'!


".......
The personality, represented by the visible human body, thus consists of three factors: 1) the psychic, 2) the astral, and 3) the physical brain. Naturally, of these only the physical brain is manifest in the earthly world.

1) The psychic brain18 is the seat, or source, of thought and will and also of conscious action—guided by the thought and the will. All knowledge, experience, learning and so forth that the psychic brain receives can by the help of thought be transformed into both psychic and physical values and results. Thus, thought, guided by the will—for either good or for evil—analyzes, coordinates, recreates, refines or sorts everything it receives, then radiates the resulting material through innumerable facets of more or less brilliant nuances, all in accordance with the preceding process of thought. The more advanced the spirit whose psychic brain is the main factor of the human personality, the more prolific the activity of the thought, the more diversified the nuances and the brighter the radiance of the facets. Every thought process regardless how faint or short is perceived concretely by normal persons, since they can to a greater or lesser extent “feel” their thoughts working. All these thoughts that have been reflected upon come into permanent possession of the individual. Values derived during life on Earth from experience, learning, and so forth, are retained by the spirit from incarnation to incarnation and increased with each new incarnation.

In this way, through the process of thought, each individual builds or shapes his or her spiritual personality.

2) The astral brain, on the other hand, automatically accumulates and retains all impressions received during earthly human life until given occasion to reproduce what it has received, exactly as recorded, with no additions.

This can be illustrated as follows:

Someone gazes, say, at the ruins of an ancient castle. If the visual contemplation is accompanied by thought, an image of what is seen will be formed—through the vision and the physical brain—in both the astral and in the psychic brain. But if the viewer gazes unthinkingly upon the ruins and surroundings,19) as so often happens, then only the astral brain captures a reflection of that seen. The psychic brain remains unaffected, when the thought does not react to the vibrations of the astral cells. Later when, for some external reason—perhaps seeing a somewhat similar scene—the image of the ruin recorded in the astral brain automatically emerges in the physical brain, reproduced there exactly as the astral brain once received it. If the thought now concentrates on this emerging image, the image also assumes definite form in the psychic brain. Then, with the emerging image of the ruins from the subconscious as a start, the person can, say, by the power of thought, create a splendid castle with ramparts, moats, and so forth—a probable reconstruction of the original castle now in ruins. It is thus the thought that has worked upon and utilized the image of the ruin that was preserved and automatically reproduced by the astral brain, as the latter is able only to repeat that received, not to form from it.

The astral brain is affected not only through sight, but also through the other senses—hearing, smell and so forth. Impressions of experiences, events, sounds, tones and so forth can thus reappear on a given occasion—can be reproduced, that is, exactly as they were received.

An example follows of the many automatic movements humans perform with the help of the astral brain during everyday life:

In a room are two washstands, separated by a cupboard. Normally, a mirror hangs by a nail over one washstand. Someone enters, their psychic mind momentarily engrossed in a train of thought far removed from the immediate situation. However, the person’s eye catches sight of the mirror, lying at that moment, for example, on a table where it does not belong. The person’s astral brain instantly produces a mental image of the mirror hanging on the wall and, without interrupting his or her train of thought, the person takes the mirror—quite automatically—goes toward one of the washstands, holds up the mirror and lets it slide down the wall to allow the string to catch on the nail. The move fails and is repeated three, four or five times, still quite automatically. But with the repeated moves the vibrations of the astral brain cells awaken the individual from his or her thoughts. The train of thought started long before is thus suddenly interrupted, and the thought of the individual is willfully given a new direction. He or she lowers the hand holding the mirror, studies the wall and through the concentration of conscious thought discovers there is no nail whereon to hang the mirror—the nail is over the other washstand. The astral brain (the human subconscious) was incapable even of the following reasoning: that the mirror would not hang upon the wall because there was nothing to hang it on. Not until the vibrations of several unsuccessfully repeated movements awakened the individual’s consciousness—the spirit— could the subconscious error of the astral brain be corrected.

Finally, an example of the way a human being, to whose physical body an undeveloped or ordinary spirit is bound, can, through autosuggestion believe he or she has “seen” every detail of an event, even though it was perceived only in fragments:

Someone witnesses, for example, an accident that is due to several “coincidences”. The shock of being present at the maiming or sudden death of one or more fellow beings causes an involuntary closure of the witness’s eyes—perhaps for only a few seconds. The image that through the sight and through the physical brain is registered in the astral and the psychic brains is then quite incomplete, since these can receive an image only of what the witness has “seen”. Later, recalling what took place and what he or she experienced, the witness tries by thought to piece together the recorded fragments. As an “eye witness”, the witness should of course know what had happened, but not recalling20) closing the eyes21)—perhaps at the decisive moment—the witness’s thought sets about reconstructing a plausible general impression: it happened in such and such a way. . . But with the constant repetition of such thoughts, new images assume—through the thought-channel, the cord—definite form in the astral brain. These images appear with every repetition of what the eyewitness has experienced, and, supported by the thought, they become steadily clearer until the individual becomes convinced of having seen the accident in every detail; and although he very well knows that his thoughts have dwelt at length on the same subject, still he is deceived by the train of images that his thought has composed. As a rule it is useless that another eyewitness unfolds the event for him as it has really taken place, for he will, in most cases, stoutly maintain that his is the correct version.

Such uncritical thinking serves no other purpose than to push back the original exact but fragmented image received by the astral and the psychic brains and to produce a train of self-composed images having nothing to do with reality.

If a more advanced or a high spirit is bound to the physical body, such self-suggestion will not be able to take place as the spiritual self will quickly survey the situation and understand that it has received that which has happened only in fragments. And if the individual tries to gather these fragments into a complete picture, he or she will likewise realize that it was their own thought which had filled in the gaps.

Thus, the astral brain, the human subconscious, can never formulate, combine nor create new thoughts from its unconsciously stored knowledge—its impressions, learning, motions, or anything seen, heard or read—since it is able only to reproduce that which is received.

___________________

20) The shock can delete this memory.
21) A suddenly arising fear can for a moment paralyze a human being's consciousness, so that the physical and astral brain cells
are incapable of vibration. What is seen is therefore not recorded so long as the paralysis persists. Voids can also arise in this way
and disturb the total impression, even though the eyes were not closed.
......."


Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Dec 29 2010, 01:30 AM
Post #154





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



I had wanted to wait a little before we gave "Realitycheck77" his Award.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
realitycheck77
post Dec 29 2010, 06:44 AM
Post #155





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 70
Joined: 25-December 08
Member No.: 4,042



QUOTE (nan4848 @ Dec 28 2010, 08:17 PM) *
The Ventura show is an investigation into the allegations of conspiracies. In this episode, it is an investigation into the allegations of groups who don't believe the official theory that every American already knows. Considering the time constraints, why waste time repeating the lie every American was indoctrinated with by the corporate/military controlled MSM starting before 9/11?


Why waste time giving people all of the evidence and letting them make their own minds ? Someone who says they are going to present all of the story and then only presents half the story ,is just deceiving people, plain and simple - that is if they are serious about presenting an investigation. If they are just trying to produce the 'conspiracy' evidence and give people the impression they are doing otherwise then it is to an investigation what WWF is a proper competative sport. If court cases consisted of the prosecutor presenting his prosecution case with no defense case allowed , and with the jury being told not to listen to anyone who presented any defense evidence because it is all lies , then a prosecution would be a forgone conclusion.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
realitycheck77
post Dec 29 2010, 06:47 AM
Post #156





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 70
Joined: 25-December 08
Member No.: 4,042



[quote name='onesliceshort' date='Dec 28 2010, 10:08 PM' post='10792496']
Just a heads up guys.

"Realitycheck77" is Adam larson aka Caustic Logic aka Frustrating Fraud.
He has raised his ugly head again because Pilots has gained a lot of (deserved) recognition on the Ventura episode.

I hope Adam Larson was reading that post - I'm not sure if I should read it since it is addressed to Adam Larson and not to me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
realitycheck77
post Dec 29 2010, 09:16 AM
Post #157





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 70
Joined: 25-December 08
Member No.: 4,042



[quote name='Tamborine man' date='Dec 28 2010, 11:42 PM' post='10792500']

"Adam Lawson is obviously deeply ignorant about the forces he is up against."

I don't know about Adam Larson but I realise witnesses can be mistaken and unreliable, and they are not always the witnesses you expect or want to be unreliable. That is the nature of unreliability. That item about witnesses, does it not apply to all witnesses ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 29 2010, 10:52 AM
Post #158



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,602
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (realitycheck77 @ Dec 29 2010, 05:44 AM) *
[snip]

Someone who says they are going to present all of the story and then only presents half the story ,is just deceiving people, plain and simple - that is if they are serious about presenting an investigation.


I agree, the 9/11 Commission Report is very deceptive in it's omissions and distortions.


QUOTE
If they are just trying to produce the 'conspiracy' evidence and give people the impression they are doing otherwise then it is to an investigation what WWF is a proper competative sport.


Wrong, Jesse was covering the information which Mainstream media and the 9/11 CR refused to address. Just as you refused to answer my questions.


QUOTE
If court cases consisted of the prosecutor presenting his prosecution case with no defense case allowed , and with the jury being told not to listen to anyone who presented any defense evidence because it is all lies , then a prosecution would be a forgone conclusion.


It is true that the public has only been given one side of the story while the growing mountain of conflicting evidence was being suppressed and silenced, until Jesse came along.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 29 2010, 11:03 AM
Post #159



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,529
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (realitycheck77 @ Dec 29 2010, 02:16 PM) *
"Adam Lawson is obviously deeply ignorant about the forces he is up against."

I don't know about Adam Larson but I realise witnesses can be mistaken and unreliable, and they are not always the witnesses you expect or want to be unreliable. That is the nature of unreliability. That item about witnesses, does it not apply to all witnesses ?


Ah, must be just a coincidence that Adam Larson used to post at LCF under the nick "Pentagonrealitycheck".
Either way, you're spouting the same repetitive nonsense and ignoring the points that don't suit.

"Unreliability" doesn't really come into it when a sizeable group of witnesses from differnt perspectives within the basin described the same thing.



Even detractors hell bent on poisoning the witness pool by whatever means could not find anybody
that contradicts them. Instead they reinforced and found more NOC evidence.

Even the online witness testimonies fail to support the necessary FDR data/directional damage path

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=959

So the real question should be, is "impact" possible from any other path than the official path?
If not, and the overwhelming majority of witnesses in the Pentaon basin totally contradict this, and it has been shown that the aerodynamical manouevres necessary are near impossible and totally non-witness compatible, added to the aircraft limitations, which should we believe? People who claim to have seen an "impact"? Or should we look at the physical realities of "impact" from lightpole1 through to the "exit hole" from the NOC trajectory?

1)Do you accept that "impact" is impossible from NOC?

2) If you don't accept the NOC evidence, can you link me to a group who contradict the NOC witnesses interviewed by CIT and those who contradict the official path (right banking, over the Navy Annex, etc)?


One thing is to say that witness testimony is "unreliable", another is to say that the majority of witnesses are wrong. All of them. That's bullkack.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
realitycheck77
post Dec 29 2010, 11:16 AM
Post #160





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 70
Joined: 25-December 08
Member No.: 4,042



@onesliceshort
"Ah, must be just a coincidence that Adam Larson used to post at LCF under the nick "Pentagonrealitycheck". "

It is a coincidence but if you want to put money on me being Adam Larson then I'm open to offers, $1000, $10,000, $100,000 , it depends on how much you want to loose.

This post has been edited by realitycheck77: Dec 29 2010, 11:18 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

11 Pages V  « < 6 7 8 9 10 > » 
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 April 2014 - 05:46 AM