The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed

reply to post by discombobulator

Uh-oh, the brand-new professional pseudoskeptic and foreign citizen who just happens to be a staunch defender of the U.S. government's laughable conspiracy theory is getting hot under the collar.

Didn't your debunking training emphasize always keeping your cool?

And I think I must've missed your explanation as to why a Canadian, Brit or Aussie would care so much about 9/11, unless of course you object to your troops getting involved in phony, senseless and endless wars.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by discombobulator

 

Uh-oh, the brand-new professional pseudoskeptic and foreign citizen who just happens to be a staunch defender of the U.S. government's laughable conspiracy theory is getting hot under the collar.

Didn't your debunking training emphasize always keeping your cool?

And I think I must've missed your explanation as to why a Canadian, Brit or Aussie would care so much about 9/11, unless of course you object to your troops getting involved in phony, senseless and endless wars.

I notice that if I go back about 10 or 11 pages in this thread I'll find you making the exact same claims about Jamie McIntyre. You were debunked then, and you are debunked now.

Funnily enough, I'll find SPreston making the exact same argument that you attempted to about Woodruff, indicating that both of you have no idea what a preamble question is.

Your response now, after being challenged on your assertion, is to again question my nationality and intentions instead of trying to revive your dead argument.

You are searching for clues for an ad-hominem attack because you have nothing else.

Originally posted by discombobulator
I notice that if I go back about 10 or 11 pages in this thread I'll find you making the exact same claims about Jamie McIntyre. You were debunked then, and you are debunked now.

Funnily enough, I'll find SPreston making the exact same argument that you attempted to about Woodruff, indicating that both of you have no idea what a preamble question is.

Debunked by who? The brand-new professional pseudoskeptic and foreign citizen who just happens to be a staunch defender of the U.S. government's laughable conspiracy theory and who claims there's a question mark after Woodruff's "preamble" statement when there's none there?

As for the rest of my questions about why a foreign national would care so much about 9/11, evasion noted once again. I'll give you the answer that you're so reluctant to admit. It's technically illegal for the government to support propaganda operations within U.S. territory.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Debunked by who? The brand-new professional pseudoskeptic and foreign citizen who just happens to be a staunch defender of the U.S. government's laughable conspiracy theory and who claims there's a question mark after Woodruff's "preamble" statement when there's none there?

This is just getting ridiculous now.

WOODRUFF: Jamie, Aaron was talking earlier -- or one of our correspondence was talking earlier -- I think -- actually, it was Bob Franken -- with an eyewitness who said it appeared that that Boeing 757, the American jet, American Airline jet, landed short of the Pentagon. Can you give us any better idea of how much of the plane actually impacted the building?

What's that at the end of the paragraph?

As for the rest of my questions about why a foreign national would care so much about 9/11, evasion noted once again. I'll give you the answer that you're so reluctant to admit. It's technically illegal for the government to support propaganda operations within U.S. territory.

You are really going off the rails now.

[edit on 12-8-2008 by discombobulator]

The fear of the one sided believers that 9/11 was a true terrorist attack is making me laugh. It's understandable, I'd find it hard to believe if my own gov't killed it's own people to start a a war somewhere else.

Oh the Bush Era has gotten to them. And these are the same people that do not bother to open there minds a little, it's a shame they're easily manipulated. But then again, small minds can only handle so much until they give up and "go with the flow."

Fear is a grand emotion. Fear that your own government would do such a thing. Look around the world, it happens everyday somewhere.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Why do you ignore what Mcintyre say before he is even asked that question.

I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane.

he mentions this before he is even asked that other question. He obviously is claiming in the above statement that there is evidence of a plane crashing into the pentagon, hence his statement or answer to the question where a witness claims the plane crashed into the lawn. "there is no evidence that a plane crashed near the pentagon. Obviously he thinks a plane crashed there if he claims a few minutes before that " I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building" Why would he claim he could see parts of the airplane then a minute later say there is no evidence of a plane crash? Answer that!

[edit on 12-8-2008 by tide88]

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Why do I get the feeling this poster isn't anything more than an response bot that just pumps out random nonsensical saying?

Because all it spews out is random nonsensical saying, perhaps?

Originally posted by Tomis_Nexis
The fear of the one sided believers that 9/11 was a true terrorist attack is making me laugh. It's understandable, I'd find it hard to believe if my own gov't killed it's own people to start a a war somewhere else.

Oh the Bush Era has gotten to them. And these are the same people that do not bother to open there minds a little, it's a shame they're easily manipulated. But then again, small minds can only handle so much until they give up and "go with the flow."

Fear is a grand emotion. Fear that your own government would do such a thing. Look around the world, it happens everyday somewhere.

One sided. Thats funny. Look how the so called truthers cherry pick their witnesses, do not show people quotes in full context, show only part of the videos (building 7 collapse) and not the whole video. The truthers are the most close minded people I have ever seen. Look at CIT they interviewed and contacted countless more than 13 people but throw out there testimony when it disagrees with there theory. That is the definition of close minded.

Hell I'd believe if the US can pull this off in this pic
www.geocities.com...

I'm sure they can paint the colors of an AA plane on that small craft under the Airliner. Anything is possible.

Originally posted by pinch
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

Why do I get the feeling this poster isn't anything more than an response bot that just pumps out random nonsensical saying?

Because all it spews out is random nonsensical saying, perhaps?

It has to be. Good point, never thought of that. That is some computer program. A 10 year old must of wrote it.

*** Attention ***

Stop the name calling, do not refer to any other member by anything other than their member name.

Stop the Off-Topic posting.

Stop the other insulting remarks.


I'll remind each and everyone of you :

ATS Rules, Guidelines, Etiquette, and more...

Please review that link.

Any further off-topic, one-line, insulting- name calling posts will be removed and the user warned.

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

Why would he claim he could see parts of the airplane then a minute later say there is no evidence of a plane crash? Answer that!

GoldenFleece is being deliberately obtuse.

I mean, really, who could read that transcript and fail to understand that Woodruff is asking a preamble question and also fail to identify the question mark at the end of her preamble question?

Who could read the transcript and fail to understand what McIntyre was saying, especially after his account of seeing airplane parts in the impact hole?

[edit on 12-8-2008 by discombobulator]

Or how about something like this.....



www.losangeles.af.mil...

Originally posted by Tomis_Nexis
Or how about something like this.....



www.losangeles.af.mil...

So we're back at the missile theory?

Have you run this one by Craig Ranke?

[edit on 12-8-2008 by discombobulator]

Originally posted by Tomis_Nexis
Hell I'd believe if the US can pull this off in this pic
www.geocities.com...

I'm sure they can paint the colors of an AA plane on that small craft under the Airliner. Anything is possible.

Sure. Once you can answer these question that slightlyabovepar posted earlier then we can consider that:

(1)What happened to flight 77?
If flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, then where is it? Where is the plane – physically? Who disposed of the aircraft? Where was it disposed? How? We are talking about 110 tons of aircraft, engines, fuel, seats, trays, avionics, luggage, etc. Where are the eyewitnesses that saw the plane physically fly over the Pentagon? Where did it land after the fly over? Were the FAA radar operators “in on it” too? Where are the airport employees who saw the 110 ton airliner land, at the undisclosed location? Were they “in on it” too, or were they killed? If so, who killed them?

(2)What happened to the passengers and crew?
Where are the passengers? Were they all “in on it”? If not, who disposed of the passengers? Where were the disposed of? How have the disposers been keep quiet? Have the disposers been killed too? How have the disposers of the disposers been kept quiet? Where were the bodies taken/buried? How was this accomplished?

(3)How do you explain the phone calls from loved ones physically on the plane, to other loved ones?
Where the calls faked? From where? How were family members duped into thinking they were talking to their wife (for example) when in you’re claiming they were talking to a computer program? How do you reconcile that some of the phone calls went through cell phone towers very close to the so-called “official” flight path? How do you reconcile that some of the calls originated from the Airphones physically on the plane in question?

(4)How do you explain the wreckage found in the building?
If it was planted, how was it planted? Who planted it? When did they plant it? Where did they get spare aircraft parts? Where were these spare aircraft parts stored? How were they transported to the scene without anyone noticing? Were the parts in question placed beforehand? If so, how? How was this accomplished without anyone noticing?

(5)How do you account for the wreckage found on the lawn?
Were the parts found in the lawn placed beforehand ? If so, where are the witnesses talking about aircraft wreckage laying around on the lawn beforehand? Or, are “they” “in on it” too? Was the wreckage on the lawn placed after the event? If so, how were “they” able to accomplish this without anyone noticing? Or are the potential witnesses, after the event “in on it” too?

(6)How do you reconcile the impact location, as it relates to the evidence?
How were the perpetrators able to judge the exact location of impact, before the event? That is, how do you reconcile that the airplane debris in question is exactly where it should be?

(7)How do you reconcile the bodies of the passengers and crew being positively identified through DNA evidence collected from within the Pentagon?
Is the DNA evidence faked? If so, by whom? Is the lab that conducted the tests and certified it’s authenticity “in on it” too?

(8)How do you reconcile personal effects, positively identified by family members as belonging to their next of kin, found within the Pentagon?
Was this evidence placed beforehand? If so, by whom? If it was placed after the event why did nobody notice? Or, are the first responders (Pentagon employees) “in on it” too? How were personal effects taken from the victims (like a drivers license) without their knowledge beforehand and planted?

(9)How do you reconcile the bodies of passengers found within the Pentagon, some still strapped into their seats?
Were the bodies placed beforehand? If so, how do you explain the bodies in question checking in at the counter at the originating airport? Were the ticketing agents “in on it” too? If the pilots were killed beforehand and then placed in the Pentagon (at some point), who flew the plane? If the bodies were placed after the event, how were the correct passengers and crew killed, then placed in the Pentagon without anyone knowing? Are the first responders, who found the first bodies, “in on it” too? Can you offer a time line that reconciles the correct passengers/crew checking in at the airport, being led off and executed and then their bodies being transported to the crash site?

(10)How do you explain the impact zone damage being completely in-line with a fast moving commercial airliner?
Was it a controlled demolition? If so, where are the blasting caps? Wiring? How was the area wired without anyone noticing? How long would this take? How would the employees who were killed at their desks not notice demolition experts wiring their office with demolitions and not complain, notice, or ask questions? Or, were the employees killed at their desk “in on it” too? If there were no employees at their desks, were the bodies planted before the event? If so, how? By whom? How have the planters been kept quiet? Were the planters killed too? By whom? Were the bodies planted after the event? If so, by whom? Where are the eyewitness reports of dead employees being brought in, after the fact? Or, were/are these potential witnesses “in on it” too?

from slightlyabovepar page 23 of this thread.

reply to post by tide88

Tide, what else is he gonna say? "OK, there's absolutely nothing here -- no fuselage, no wings, no engine, not a single piece of wreckage that has any identifying markings, so not only is there no evidence that a plane crashed anywhere near the Pentagon, I suspect all these tiny pieces are really from a missile?"

How absurd that the debunkers use his later "explanation" -- Hey, when I said there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon, I was really answering a question and actually meant it crashed into the Pentagon. OK, Jamie.

It's as laughable as the debunkers claiming that when Larry Silverstein said "pull it" on PBS (then said that he watched the building collapse), he actually meant "pull" the firefighters!

Or that Rumsfeld was making simple mis-statements when he mentioned the "missile that hit the Pentagon" or the "terrorists who shot Flight 93 down."

How gullible do they think we are?

reply to post by Tomis_Nexis

I'd find it hard to believe if my own gov't killed it's own people to start a a war somewhere else.

Better start finding it hard then. (Please be aware I might have mis-interpreted your response - inflection doesn't work well in text).

Iraq was an easy step - look at the UK and the dossier, and Dr. David Kelly, silenced so he couldn't blow the lid on the operation.

[edit on 12-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by Tomis_Nexis
Or how about something like this.....



www.losangeles.af.mil...

So we're back at the missile theory?

Have you run this one by Craig Ranke?

[edit on 12-8-2008 by discombobulator]

Did i ever say it was a missle theory? No, I can't seem to find it at all anywhere, please direct me to where you saw me state that. What i was getting at is that it's possible to carry a craft on the under belly of a larger plane. So as shown in the video of the key witness seeing the flyover, a smaller craft could have been disengaged from the larger craft to hit the Pentagon.

Edit, something like this www.geocities.com...

[edit on 12-8-2008 by Tomis_Nexis]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
reply to post by Tomis_Nexis

 

I'd find it hard to believe if my own gov't killed it's own people to start a a war somewhere else.

Better start finding it hard then.

Iraq was an easy step - look at the UK and the dossier, and Dr. David Kelly, silenced so he couldn't blow the lid on the operation.

[edit on 12-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

I'm not american. I was being sarcastic. I was looking at it from the skeptics point of view. The skeptics who don't take time to read the OP and believe that America wouldn't do this to it's own people.

Edit, I see your edit, all is good. I think we're both on the same page and thoughts.

[edit on 12-8-2008 by Tomis_Nexis]