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 )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Questions For Warren Stutt, Gauging your position

Aldo Marquis CIT
post Oct 25 2009, 03:40 PM
Post #1


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



I am curious Warren...

1. Do you believe 9/11 was an inside job?
2. Do you believe the plane approached on the north side of the former Citgo gas station based on all the corroborated eyewitness testimony we obtained?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Oct 25 2009, 06:18 PM
Post #2





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Oct 30 2009, 08:40 PM) *
I am curious Warren...

1. Do you believe 9/11 was an inside job?
I am suspicious of some aspects of what we were told by the government and how the 9/11 commission was run. I was intrigued enough by Pilots for 9/11 Truth's claim that AAL77 was too high to hit the light poles, based on the FDR data decoded by the NTSB to want to do my own decode of the FDR data.

QUOTE
2. Do you believe the plane approached on the north side of the former Citgo gas station based on all the corroborated eyewitness testimony we obtained?
There are other lines of enquiry including some witnesses you have interviewed that you do not find credible that indicate that AAL77 approached from the south side of the former Citgo gas station as indicated by the FDR data. At this point I have not, in my mind, been able to resolve the conflict between the eyewitness testimony that a plane approached on the north side with the other lines of enquiry. I have no reason to believe that the north side witnesses were dishonest.

Warren
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Oct 26 2009, 03:20 PM
Post #3


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE (wstutt @ Oct 25 2009, 10:18 PM) *
There are other lines of enquiry including some witnesses you have interviewed that you do not find credible that indicate that AAL77 approached from the south side of the former Citgo gas station as indicated by the FDR data.


Actually no, you are incorrect. That is not true.

Can you name these "witnesses" please?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Oct 27 2009, 05:42 PM
Post #4





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Oct 31 2009, 08:20 PM) *
Actually no, you are incorrect. That is not true.

Can you name these "witnesses" please?
Keith Wheelhouse for one.

He fits my definition of a witness as "anyone who described what they saw", even if his testimony does not match the official south of Citgo path or the other witnesses you interviewed.

The path he drew on the map is south of Citgo and even if the plane he says he saw would have had to have been higher that the official south of Citgo path, he is still describing what he saw.

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Oct 27 2009, 10:57 PM
Post #5





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



QUOTE (wstutt @ Oct 27 2009, 09:42 PM) *
Keith Wheelhouse for one.

He fits my definition of a witness as "anyone who described what they saw", even if his testimony does not match the official south of Citgo path or the other witnesses you interviewed.

The path he drew on the map is south of Citgo and even if the plane he says he saw would have had to have been higher that the official south of Citgo path, he is still describing what he saw.

Warren.


Incorrect.

Keith Wheelhouse can not be a south of the gas station witness because he admitted to having no memory of the gas station and sure enough the location where he claims he was allegedly located has absolutely no view of the gas station whatsoever.



There is no view of the official flight path from there either. If the official south side flight path and speed were true he would have been lucky to catch a glimpse of it out of the corner of his eye for a single second if that. Yet he claims he watched it approach for a good "60 seconds" together with the C-130 right on top of it!

We know for a fact that he his lying about the C-130 "shadowing" an American airline jet and veering away during the explosion.



So if anything it should seriously concern you that this is the ONLY guy who happened to draw the official flight path perfectly while at least a dozen others corroborated each other regarding something drastically different proving the plane did not hit. INCLUDING a group of witnesses who were only a few hundred feet away from Wheelhouse's alleged location but with an unobstructed view from in front of the maintenance buildings.




Wheelhouse is not a south side witness because you can not be a witness to something you can not see.

Are you really trying to suggest that you think Wheelhouse remotely refutes the massive body of north side witnesses including ANC employees Darrell Stafford, Donald Carter, Darius Prather, Russell Roy, and Erik Dihle who all ALSO prove Wheelhouses heavily publicized claim about the shadowing C-130 a lie?

They all saw the C-130 approach from the northwest significantly AFTER the explosion and they are backed up by video, photographs, other witnesses, and the C-130 crew themselves.




The notion that you could even cite Wheelhouse as an alleged south side witness DESPITE all this and DESPITE the fact that this type of false story of a shadowing plane flying away DURING the explosion would clearly serve as a perfect cover for the flyover demonstrates either a lack of ability to look at this evidence and think logically or a clear desire to skew the facts and obfuscate the implications of the evidence we have presented.

It is not merely our opinion that Wheelhouse is not credible. The evidence proves it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Oct 27 2009, 11:15 PM
Post #6





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



so, is warren just another disinfo agent?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Oct 28 2009, 01:45 PM
Post #7





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 2 2009, 03:57 AM) *
Incorrect.

Keith Wheelhouse can not be a south of the gas station witness because he admitted to having no memory of the gas station and sure enough the location where he claims he was allegedly located has absolutely no view of the gas station whatsoever.
Why would he need to be able to see the gas station? Perhaps his recollection puts the plane higher?

QUOTE
There is no view of the official flight path from there either. If the official south side flight path and speed were true he would have been lucky to catch a glimpse of it out of the corner of his eye for a single second if that. Yet he claims he watched it approach for a good "60 seconds" together with the C-130 right on top of it!
Perhaps his recollection does not match the altitude of the official south side flight path.

QUOTE
We know for a fact that he his lying about the C-130 "shadowing" an American airline jet and veering away during the explosion.
Are the north side witnesses you interviewed that said the plane hit the pentagon also lying?

QUOTE
So if anything it should seriously concern you that this is the ONLY guy who happened to draw the official flight path perfectly while at least a dozen others corroborated each other regarding something drastically different proving the plane did not hit. INCLUDING a group of witnesses who were only a few hundred feet away from Wheelhouse's alleged location but with an unobstructed view from in front of the maintenance buildings.
OK, so his testimony differs from the other witnesses. Did you read what I said?
QUOTE
At this point I have not, in my mind, been able to resolve the conflict between the eyewitness testimony that a plane approached on the north side with the other lines of enquiry


QUOTE
Wheelhouse is not a south side witness because you can not be a witness to something you can not see.
It was impossible for him to see a plane flying higher than the official south side path?

QUOTE
Are you really trying to suggest that you think Wheelhouse remotely refutes the massive body of north side witnesses including ANC employees Darrell Stafford, Donald Carter, Darius Prather, Russell Roy, and Erik Dihle who all ALSO prove Wheelhouses heavily publicized claim about the shadowing C-130 a lie?

They all saw the C-130 approach from the northwest significantly AFTER the explosion and they are backed up by video, photographs, other witnesses, and the C-130 crew themselves.
<snip>
So any witness who is mistaken is deliberately lying?

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Oct 28 2009, 03:04 PM
Post #8





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Nov 2 2009, 03:57 AM) *
<snip>
The notion that you could even cite Wheelhouse as an alleged south side witness DESPITE all this and DESPITE the fact that this type of false story of a shadowing plane flying away DURING the explosion would clearly serve as a perfect cover for the flyover demonstrates either a lack of ability to look at this evidence and think logically or a clear desire to skew the facts and obfuscate the implications of the evidence we have presented.
<snip>
You asked for my opinions. I've given them.

End of discussion.

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Oct 28 2009, 04:07 PM
Post #9





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



QUOTE (wstutt @ Oct 28 2009, 05:45 PM) *
Why would he need to be able to see the gas station? Perhaps his recollection puts the plane higher?


The relevant question that proves whether or not the plane hit is what side of the gas station the plane flew. Wheelhouse can not be a "south side of the gas station" witness without having a recollection of, or being physically able to see the gas station at all from his alleged location.

This should be obvious to anyone who looks at this information logically and objectively.

QUOTE
Perhaps his recollection does not match the altitude of the official south side flight path.


That is irrelevant since we know his alleged vantage makes it impossible to tell what side of the gas station the plane flew. It's also a silly assertion given that the evidence proves he lied about a shadowing C-130.

QUOTE
Are the north side witnesses you interviewed that said the plane hit the pentagon also lying?


What do they have to do with Wheelhouse's proven false "shadowing" claim?

A north side approach proves a deliberate military deception regarding the impact. Does this logic really escape you or are you further exposing your desire to skew the facts and obfuscate the implications of the evidence we have presented?

QUOTE
OK, so his testimony differs from the other witnesses. Did you read what I said?

"At this point I have not, in my mind, been able to resolve the conflict between the eyewitness testimony that a plane approached on the north side with the other lines of enquiry"


Yes I read that and the point is that there is no logic for such a vague and non-definitive statement given the evidence. It's quite easy to resolve the "conflict". Over a dozen credible and corroborated witnesses who prove a north side approach prove a military deception involving a flyover. This in turn discredits Keith Wheelhouse particularly given his proven false "shadowing" claim that serves as a perfect cover for the flyover.

QUOTE
It was impossible for him to see a plane flying higher than the official south side path?


No, it would be impossible for him to tell where it flew in relation to the gas station which is the relevant question. Does this logic really escape you or are you further exposing your desire to skew the facts and obfuscate the implications of the evidence we have presented?

QUOTE
So any witness who is mistaken is deliberately lying?

Warren.


Absolutely not.

But you can't "mistake" a plane that flew into the scene about 3 minutes after the explosion as approaching at the same time as the attack jet and veering away during the explosion. Especially since we know this heavily publicized false story served as a perfect cover for the flyover.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Oct 28 2009, 04:09 PM
Post #10





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



QUOTE (wstutt @ Oct 28 2009, 08:04 PM) *
You asked for my opinions. I've given them.

End of discussion.

Warren.



It is the end of the discussion for you Warren.

Yes we asked for your opinions and now that you have given them you have exposed yourself as someone with either a lack of ability to look at this evidence and think logically or a clear desire to skew the facts and obfuscate the implications of the evidence we have presented.

You don't strike me as a particularly ignorant individual so my bets are on the latter.

Thanks for being so forthright with your opinion.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Oct 28 2009, 04:48 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Oct 29 2009, 02:53 PM
Post #11


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE (albertchampion @ Oct 28 2009, 04:15 AM) *
so, is warren just another disinfo agent?


Unfortunately, based on this type of behavior this is always a strong possibility.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Oct 29 2009, 07:26 PM
Post #12





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



Yep
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: 20th October 2019 - 01:11 PM