The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed

Originally posted by SPreston

nicepants
SPRESTON: If an eyewitness claims to have seen something, does that make it "proven"?

If you put all the eyewitness accounts placing the aircraft over the Navy Annex and North of the Citgo together with the eyewitness accounts placing the aircraft over DC and crossing the Potomac and banking around Reagan together with the NORAD tapes placing the aircraft over DC and 6 miles southeast of the White House together..."

1. Where are the eyewitnesses to a flyover away from the Pentagon, SP?

2. Where is the flight path away from the Pentagon, SP?

Show us, SPreston:




Stop your evasions. Answer the questions, SPreston.

Originally posted by SPreston

nicepants
SPRESTON: If an eyewitness claims to have seen something, does that make it "proven"?

If you put all the eyewitness accounts placing the aircraft over the Navy Annex and North of the Citgo together with the eyewitness accounts placing the aircraft over DC and crossing the Potomac and banking around Reagan together with the NORAD tapes placing the aircraft over DC and 6 miles southeast of the White House together with the absense of aircraft debris scientifically identified by serial # as Flight 77 N644AA together with the obvious fakery of the parking lot security videos together with the confiscation and censorship of all local video tapes which might prove the identity of the approaching aircraft together with eyewitnesses accounts placing the C-130 far north of the RADES flight path PROVING the RADES a fake together with the evidence gathered by P4T demonstrating the FDR a fake together with the extreme difficulty of a 100 ton 535 mph pull up to level flight mere inches above a lawn after a descent down a hill through five 247 lb light poles together with the impossibility of the totally ridiculous light pole scenario with Lloyd England and the magical lay down gently light poles:

Yes it does.

I didn't ask about any of that other stuff.....my question was:

If an eyewitness claims to have seen something, does that make it "proven"?

Originally posted by nicepants

Originally posted by SPreston

nicepants
SPRESTON: If an eyewitness claims to have seen something, does that make it "proven"?

If you put all the eyewitness accounts placing the aircraft over the Navy Annex and North of the Citgo together with the eyewitness accounts placing the aircraft over DC and crossing the Potomac and banking around Reagan together with the NORAD tapes placing the aircraft over DC and 6 miles southeast of the White House together with the absense of aircraft debris scientifically identified by serial # as Flight 77 N644AA together with the obvious fakery of the parking lot security videos together with the confiscation and censorship of all local video tapes which might prove the identity of the approaching aircraft together with eyewitnesses accounts placing the C-130 far north of the RADES flight path PROVING the RADES a fake together with the evidence gathered by P4T demonstrating the FDR a fake together with the extreme difficulty of a 100 ton 535 mph pull up to level flight mere inches above a lawn after a descent down a hill through five 247 lb light poles together with the impossibility of the totally ridiculous light pole scenario with Lloyd England and the magical lay down gently light poles:

Yes it does.

I didn't ask about any of that other stuff.....my question was:

If an eyewitness claims to have seen something, does that make it "proven"?

I do not single out any single eyewitness like you 'government loyalists' do. I consider the preponderence of evidence just like any jury would. I consider which eyewitnesses are truthful and which eyewitnesses are liars or not witnesses at all and to be discarded just like any jury would. I consider which evidence is real and which evidence is planted just like any jury would. I consider who benefits (cui bono? - Who gains?) most from an attack on America just like any professional investigator would.

You 'government loyalists' prefer to divide and conquer even with your selection of individual eyewitnesses and separating evidence. You cannot possibly win if you combine all the eyewitness testimony and all the evidence and you all know that fact.

You see my answer above.

Originally posted by beachnut

Let me show you what you lack!
1. Proof the FDR is not real!
2. Proof the DNA evidence is not real!
3. Proof the parts at the Pentagon are not 77!

It is your burden to prove you ideas, which absent of facts and evidence now, stand as pure fantasy.

look in a mirror.
theses things are exactly true of the official story as well.

there is NO PROOF of ANYTHING.

the best we have to work with is circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony. seeing as this job was pulled off by the people who are providing what official evidence there is(the military/industrial/media complex), that evidence is pretty much non-admissible.

why are there no videos? there were over 80 cameras.
why did the FBI KNOW to be at the CITGO and the doubletree within minutes of the crash? why was the FBI even concerned about this evidence, when people were still dying and their efforts could have been focused on something much more critical, like saving lives.

the fact that you have a certificate, along with your towing of the party line, suggests to me that you might be 'in on it'.

i'm still waiting for you to tell me what's wrong with my physics, BTW.

Originally posted by SPreston
I consider the preponderence of evidence just like any jury would.

We've asked you to provide the evidence of a flyover. You can't.

I consider which eyewitnesses are truthful and which eyewitnesses are liars or not witnesses at all and to be discarded just like any jury would.

You're not a jury. You're simply an amateur who makes unsubstantiated claims and can't back them up.You haven't provided any eyewitnesses who claim to have seen any jet fly away from the Pentagon. You haven't provided any flight path away from the Pentagon.

No more of your Fascist propaganda, Spreston.

Preston (and others who support this theory):

Very simple questions here, please answer:

1. Do you feel that all the eyewitnesses who said they saw a large passenger jet (some saying a 757, some saying an AA flight, some just saying a plane) crash into the side of the Pentagon are all mistaken? All lying? Or have been fooled in some way? I'm curious about this one most of all, because just like you are saying witnesses seeing a plane flying at a different path proves without a shadow of doubt your theory, I don't understand how witnesses seeing it crash into the Pentagon cannot do the same. i.e. prove it did indeed, crash into the building as said.

2. If they did not see that plane crashinto the Pentagon (if you think they saw something, like Fleece says, but not what they thought they saw), what did they see? What in your opinion crashed into the side of the Pentagon.


That's it. I'd like those answered please. If eyewitnesses are a key factor in proving your story, then they should be equally valid for the claims of it crashing into the Pentagon. I'd like to know why they are NOT as valid, in your opinion.

Originally posted by SPreston

Originally posted by nicepants

Originally posted by SPreston

nicepants
SPRESTON: If an eyewitness claims to have seen something, does that make it "proven"?

If you put all the eyewitness accounts placing the aircraft over the Navy Annex and North of the Citgo together with the eyewitness accounts placing the aircraft over DC and crossing the Potomac and banking around Reagan together with the NORAD tapes placing the aircraft over DC and 6 miles southeast of the White House together with the absense of aircraft debris scientifically identified by serial # as Flight 77 N644AA together with the obvious fakery of the parking lot security videos together with the confiscation and censorship of all local video tapes which might prove the identity of the approaching aircraft together with eyewitnesses accounts placing the C-130 far north of the RADES flight path PROVING the RADES a fake together with the evidence gathered by P4T demonstrating the FDR a fake together with the extreme difficulty of a 100 ton 535 mph pull up to level flight mere inches above a lawn after a descent down a hill through five 247 lb light poles together with the impossibility of the totally ridiculous light pole scenario with Lloyd England and the magical lay down gently light poles:

Yes it does.

I didn't ask about any of that other stuff.....my question was:

If an eyewitness claims to have seen something, does that make it "proven"?

I do not single out any single eyewitness like you 'government loyalists' do. I consider the preponderence of evidence just like any jury would. I consider which eyewitnesses are truthful and which eyewitnesses are liars or not witnesses at all and to be discarded just like any jury would. I consider which evidence is real and which evidence is planted just like any jury would. I consider who benefits (cui bono? - Who gains?) most from an attack on America just like any professional investigator would.

Then Alex Jones should be your #1 suspect.

Originally posted by SPrestonYou 'government loyalists' prefer to divide and conquer even with your selection of individual eyewitnesses and separating evidence. You cannot possibly win if you combine all the eyewitness testimony and all the evidence and you all know that fact.

You see my answer above.

Your answer above requires many other things to be proven in order for the eyewitness evidence to be proof of anything, this contradicts your earlier claim that the eyewitnesses "proved" something.

What does my question have to do with government loyalty?

Preponderance of the evidence?

How many people report the plane hitting the pentagon?

Vs.

How many people report the plane NOT hitting the Pentagon?


Or

Amount of physical evidence showing that a plane crashed at the pentagon?

vs

Amount of physical evidence showing that the plane went somewhere other than into the pentagon?

And how is it you somehow magically know which eyewitnesses are lying vs which are mistaken and which are correct?



Your paranoia isn't evidence. I think you need to re-learn the meaning of the word "proof". You haven't proven anything except your inability to reason. Numerous people saw the plane hit the pentagon, recovered the bodies & wreckage from within the pentagon...and ZERO people report the plane missing the Pentagon.

You still didn't answer my question. Are you afraid of the implications?

If an eyewitness claims to have seen something, does that make it "proven"?

Originally posted by TheBobert
It cracks me up that Ultima demands that we skeptics provide him with evidence yet at the same time he refuses to take the CIT evidence to a court.

What evidnece have you skeptics posted?

I have yet to see any official reports or physical evidence to support your claims or the offiical story.

I will take my evidence to court when you also have your evidnece to debate me.

Originally posted by discombobulator
Do you currently have a FOIA Request to gain public access to this document?

Yes i do, through public and internal request as stated.

If so, what is the FOIA Request Number (or Case File number)?

There is no request number untill the request is sent. But i can show you the public e-mail that i sent.

Now when are you going to adult enough to answer my question about the E-4?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I will take my evidence to court when you also have your evidnece to debate me.

Right, because debating people on the internet is priority #1...getting that evidence into a court is further down on the list. Pathetic.

Originally posted by nicepants
Right, because debating people on the internet is priority #1...getting that evidence into a court is further down on the list. Pathetic.

No becasue its just more proof that the belivers do not have evidence to deabte me or to support the official story.

If i go to court i am going to take believers with me just to finally get them to wake up from the fantasy world they live in.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by nicepants
Right, because debating people on the internet is priority #1...getting that evidence into a court is further down on the list. Pathetic.

No becasue its just more proof that the belivers do not have evidence to deabte me or to support the official story.

If i go to court i am going to take believers with me just to finally get them to wake up from the fantasy world they live in.

So take your evidence to court! What do you care if "believers" present evidence to you or debate with you or not? You've already made up your mind. Get into court and bring about some justice! Isn't that what you want? (Or do you just want to endlessly debate people on a message board?)

Originally posted by nicepants
So take your evidence to court! What do you care if "believers" present evidence to you or debate with you or not?

Becasue they need to stop spreading the media lies. They need to be shown the errors of thier ways.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by nicepants
So take your evidence to court! What do you care if "believers" present evidence to you or debate with you or not?

Becasue they need to stop spreading the media lies. They need to be shown the errors of thier ways.

And that's more important than getting this evidence into a court to bring about justice?

Originally posted by nicepants
And that's more important than getting this evidence into a court to bring about justice?

Funny how you talk about justice when you and other believers keep spreading the media lies.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by nicepants
And that's more important than getting this evidence into a court to bring about justice?

Funny how you talk about justice when you and other believers keep spreading the media lies.

Funny...I thought justice was your goal.
I'm just calling your bluff.

You claim to have evidence proving the USG responsible for mass murder, and you don't even believe your own theories enough to attempt to bring those responsible to justice.

Originally posted by nicepants
Funny...I thought justice was your goal.
I'm just calling your bluff.

I am looking for the truth, something everyone should be dong instead of just going by what we were told.

You claim to have evidence proving the USG responsible for mass murder, and you don't even believe your own theories enough to attempt to bring those responsible to justice.

Sorry i never stated anything about mass murder, thats just another sign of an immature beleiver twisting my posts.



[edit on 20-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by nicepants
Funny...I thought justice was your goal.
I'm just calling your bluff.

I am looking for the truth, something everyone should be dong instead of just going by what we were told.

You're looking for the "truth" as in what really happened?
Or you're looking for the "truth"(tm) as in anything that makes you believe that 911 was an inside job?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

You claim to have evidence proving the USG responsible for mass murder, and you don't even believe your own theories enough to attempt to bring those responsible to justice.

Sorry i never stated anything about mass murder, thats just another sign of an immature beleiver twisting my posts.

The crimes of 9/11 were mass-murders, were they not?

Originally posted by nicepants
You're looking for the "truth" as in what really happened?
Or you're looking for the "truth"(tm) as in anything that makes you believe that 911 was an inside job?

The crimes of 9/11 were mass-murders, were they not?

Only if its proven that it was an inside job. So far the only real evidence we have is that they had prior warnings but underestimated the warnings.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

The crimes of 9/11 were mass-murders, were they not?

Only if its proven that it was an inside job. So far the only real evidence we have is that they had prior warnings but underestimated the warnings.

Regardless of who was responsible, the perpetrators of 9/11 are guilty of mass-murder. Would you agree?