Gage, Asner, Hicks, Griffin, etc. endorse Pentagon Investigation

reply to post by evil incarnate


In a court of law motive is huge
in realestate location is a biggie.
When you get caught in an affair, deny, deny.

Isn't it remarkable that after years of claiming a "flyover" and repeated questions to CIT of why they refuse to do a proper investigation, that CIT STILL can't find numerous eyewitnesses to a flyover out of the hundreds in a position to see one if one had occurred?

What's really funny is that CIT and Cap'n Robby Balsamo even illustrated what a flyover would look like but were such dodos to forget completely that people all around the Pentagon - on the freeways, bridges, in the parking lots - would have seen a bloody jet flying over the Pentagon.

What's even more indicative of outright denial is that there are still people who actually believe CIT's claims!

When are you CIT cultists going to give up the fantasy of a "flyover?"

Originally posted by Soloist
It's not *my* story, it's CIT's flyover fantasy story that we were talking about before you came in with your off topic ramblings related to the speed of the plane in the video.

You first mentioned the Doubletree video, Soloist and you reminded us all how it was troublesome - especially for you.

It's hardly off topic when you introduced the video into the discussion.

Originally posted by jthomas
Isn't it remarkable that after years of claiming a "flyover" and repeated questions to CIT of why they refuse to do a proper investigation, that CIT STILL can't find numerous eyewitnesses to a flyover out of the hundreds in a position to see one if one had occurred?

Casual readers to this thread might like to consider how jthomas has previously debunked his own poor logic.

Despite his contstant denials - here are his words taken from this thread:

Originally posted by jthomas
Do you understand that neither you nor anyone else has the magical power to claim what an unknown number of people in a position to see a jet fly over the Pentagon would or would not see and you cannot guarantee that NO ONE would see the jet?

So, there you have it, jthomas has previously admitted that no one has the 'magical power' to know what an unknown people would or would not have seen. jthomas admitted that it is not possible to determine how many people would have seen a flyover.

Now, sit back and watch him try to deny his own words... it cracks me up every time.

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by evil incarnate

 

In a court of law motive is huge
in realestate location is a biggie.
When you get caught in an affair, deny, deny.

Huh? I have no idea what your reply is actually to. Which part of my statement are you addressing? What point are you making? Are you arguing or agreeing? I never said anything about motive, location, or affairs.

reply to post by evil incarnate


evil
I was just trying to answer your previous question about why the OSers are so defensive,
Those are three powerful reasons that apply to debunking the OS.
Especially the WTC.
Sorry I wasn't more clear.

Originally posted by jthomas
Isn't it remarkable that after years of claiming a "flyover" and repeated questions to CIT of why they refuse to do a proper investigation, that CIT STILL can't find numerous eyewitnesses to a flyover out of the hundreds in a position to see one if one had occurred?

Isn't it remarkable that after years of claiming "Al Qaeda Did it" and "Smoke Em Out" regarding Bin Laden, and repeated questions to the US Govt of why they refuse to do a proper investigation, that the US Govt STILL can't provide data nor positive identification, nor list Bin Laden as a suspect for 9/11 to justify wars on two fronts and their foreign and domestic policy?

The difference between the two quotes above?

CIT doesn't have the budget of the US Govt, yet jthomas and others like him still attack CIT/P4T for raising funds, yet expect a "proper investigation" from such organizations, and continues to make excuses for the 9/11 Investigation which was "Set Up To Fail" according to Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, Co-Chairs, 9/11 Commission.

jthomas, you claimed you were going to DC to confront the witnesses, why didn't YOU do a "proper investigation"?

Give it up jthomas, you failed.

[edit on 31-7-2009 by ValkyrieWings]

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Soloist
It's not *my* story, it's CIT's flyover fantasy story that we were talking about before you came in with your off topic ramblings related to the speed of the plane in the video.

You first mentioned the Doubletree video, Soloist and you reminded us all how it was troublesome - especially for you.

It's hardly off topic when you introduced the video into the discussion.

The speed is off topic and out of the context of which the video was being discussed. It's funny that since you cannot address that issue you try and dodge it time and time again. You are the one who seems to be having trouble with this.

Bottom line, where in the video can anyone see the plane "flyover" the Pentagon? That's my own very simple question. No ducking, no dodging, anything else other than a reply to that question if simply distraction.

There is no plane flying over the Pentagon, because it didn't happen.

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by evil incarnate

 

evil
I was just trying to answer your previous question about why the OSers are so defensive,
Those are three powerful reasons that apply to debunking the OS.
Especially the WTC.
Sorry I wasn't more clear.

OK, fair enough but I still do not really get your answer then. I appreciate that you were trying to help me understand these nutjobs but I am not sure what you mean. Location? Affairs? How does any of this play into their argument. I am a little more clear on what side you are taking here but I still do not get your answer. Thanks for trying to clarify for me though.

reply to post by Soloist


So...just a thought here. You do not think it is possible for a plane flying over to be out of frame in that video? Especially if it launched something at the building. It would have to ascend well before it is in view of the camera and would in all likelyhood, completely miss the camera's range altogether. Is there a reason this is not possible to you?

Originally posted by evil incarnate
reply to post by Soloist

 

So...just a thought here. You do not think it is possible for a plane flying over to be out of frame in that video? Especially if it launched something at the building. It would have to ascend well before it is in view of the camera and would in all likelyhood, completely miss the camera's range altogether. Is there a reason this is not possible to you?

Please remember that we are talking in the context of CIT's "flyover" theory. They claim the plane flew low over the south parking lot and that the explosion was timed well enough with the "flyover" that witnesses would not have been paying attention to it flying away.

Their theory is that pre-planted explosives possibly with rooms full of plane parts were what caused the explosion. They do not believe the plane launched anything, nor do any of the witnesses report such an event.

So no, what you are suggesting is not possible (in that context), if the plane flew over the Pentagon as they claim we should see that in the video, but do not.

Originally posted by Soloist
Please remember that we are talking in the context of CIT's "flyover" theory. They claim the plane flew low over the south parking lot and that the explosion was timed well enough with the "flyover" that witnesses would not have been paying attention to it flying away.

Their theory is that pre-planted explosives possibly with rooms full of plane parts were what caused the explosion. They do not believe the plane launched anything, nor do any of the witnesses report such an event.

So no, what you are suggesting is not possible (in that context), if the plane flew over the Pentagon as they claim we should see that in the video, but do not.

No, not really. I do not see these as mutually exclusive. It would not take much to be out of shot in that camera but be hidding by the explosion from almost any other perspective.

Originally posted by evil incarnate
It would not take much to be out of shot in that camera but be hidding by the explosion from almost any other perspective.

You would be able to see the plane above the Pentagon *before* the explosion in their scenario. It would have to be above the Pentagon, by the time the explosion happened in order to fit their "theory" that people were deceived by such a "perfectly timed" magic trick.

Remember their "witness" claims it was only 50-100 or so feet above the Pentagon over the south parking lot. With that shot this would be easily seen.

But again, it isn't. Why? Because it never flew over.

reply to post by Soloist


I guess you do not understand how relative perspective works. Sorry, I cannot help you then. Please, stick your head back in the sand. Your government loves you. Your government would never lie to you. Politicians only want what is best for their constituents. I am glad you are so unwavering and closed minded. I love that you are not even willing to think about why you might be wrong because you are so sure you have it all figured out. We need people like you to push in the way while the rest of us see it coming.

Originally posted by evil incarnate
I guess you do not understand how relative perspective works. Sorry, I cannot help you then. Please, stick your head back in the sand. Your government loves you. Your government would never lie to you. Politicians only want what is best for their constituents. I am glad you are so unwavering and closed minded. I love that you are not even willing to think about why you might be wrong because you are so sure you have it all figured out. We need people like you to push in the way while the rest of us see it coming.

Nice reply.

Problem is with people like you is you already have your mind made up yet have no proof. It's obvious you aren't interested in the "truth", unless of course it's some wacky unfounded conspiracy.

Can you offer any proof of the "flyover"? Anything at all, that isn't hearsay, or "it must be"? No one has to this day. All of CIT's witnesses claim impact. The scores of other witnesses that don't fit in with CIT's "north side" claim that they push aside all claim impact.

The video clearly shows the plane does NOT flyover the Pentagon as CIT claims. If you think it does please point out where that huge plane is, and please point out why more than 100 witnesses to the event did not report it flying over the Pentagon. Remember it's CIT's claim that the "flyover" was perfectly timed with the explosion to create the "illusion" of impact, if the plane was flying too high to be out of frame in the doubletree vid, sorry but there is NO way that many people would not have noticed (don't forget Boger watching it go into the building).

Otherwise please continue to enjoy your ignorance.

Originally posted by Soloist
Nice reply.

Problem is with people like you is you already have your mind made up yet have no proof. It's obvious you aren't interested in the "truth", unless of course it's some wacky unfounded conspiracy.

I am just open to possibilities. I know that the line we have been fed from our government is not true so I am open to other ideas. You are the one who is set in their way.

Can you offer any proof of the "flyover"? Anything at all, that isn't hearsay, or "it must be"? No one has to this day. All of CIT's witnesses claim impact. The scores of other witnesses that don't fit in with CIT's "north side" claim that they push aside all claim impact.

Nope. Never claimed that I could. Can you offer any proof of flight 77 hitting the pentagon? It works both ways, princess.

The video clearly shows the plane does NOT flyover the Pentagon as CIT claims. If you think it does please point out where that huge plane is, and please point out why more than 100 witnesses to the event did not report it flying over the Pentagon. Remember it's CIT's claim that the "flyover" was perfectly timed with the explosion to create the "illusion" of impact, if the plane was flying too high to be out of frame in the doubletree vid, sorry but there is NO way that many people would not have noticed (don't forget Boger watching it go into the building).

How is Boger watchingit go into the building not hearsay? What a double standard you have. The video does not clearly show anything.

Otherwise please continue to enjoy your ignorance.

And you enjoy blindly defending a government that would not do the same for you. I will be waiting for that proof.

Originally posted by evil incarnate
How is Boger watchingit go into the building not hearsay?

Ask CIT. It's their witness and all. My guess it would be because he directly reports seeing it, not someone else saying he said it. Their other "flyover" witnesses are only reported through someone else saying they said such an event occured. Big difference.

Surely you can figure that out, eh princess?

The video does not clearly show anything.

Thank you for finally admitting the video does not show the flyover as CIT claims!

Hey did you guys ever hear of this.
I got this idea from goldenfleese on another thread

Operation Northwoods
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Operation Northwoods memorandum (March 13, 1962).[1]
Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a false-flag plan, proposed within the United States government in 1962. The plan called for CIA or other operatives to commit apparent acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Castro-led Cuba. One plan was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington".

This operation is especially notable in that it included plans for hijackings and bombings followed by the use of phony evidence that would blame the terrorist acts on a foreign government, namely Cuba.

The plan stated:

The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere.

Operation Northwoods was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and signed by then-Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer, and sent to the Secretary of Defense.

Several other proposals were listed, including the real or simulated actions against various U.S military and civilian targets. Operation Northwoods was part of the U.S. government's Cuban Project (Operation Mongoose) anti-Castro initiative. It was never officially accepted.
Pretty spooky eh!

Originally posted by Soloist
Ask CIT. It's their witness and all. My guess it would be because he directly reports seeing it, not someone else saying he said it. Their other "flyover" witnesses are only reported through someone else saying they said such an event occured. Big difference.

Surely you can figure that out, eh princess?

You stretched that logic past the breaking point didn't you. You completely missed the point and I have to assume it is on purpose. How is anyone saying anything that happend that day not hearsay? According to you, the only thing that would not be hearsay would be if I witnessed it myself. Anything else is second hand, be it a flyover or direct hit.

The video does not clearly show anything.

Thank you for finally admitting the video does not show the flyover as CIT claims!

I never said otherwise did I? I brought up the possibility of things happening outside of the frame of those shots. I never said there was footage of a flyover. If you had such a simple case here, you would not be trying sooo hard to win it.

Originally posted by evil incarnate
You stretched that logic past the breaking point didn't you. You completely missed the point and I have to assume it is on purpose. How is anyone saying anything that happend that day not hearsay? According to you, the only thing that would not be hearsay would be if I witnessed it myself. Anything else is second hand, be it a flyover or direct hit.

If you're going to argue something please come to the table better informed.

Boger did witness it (the impact) himself. However the person whom Craig was referring in his posts above did NOT witness the "flyover" and merely reported some anonymous people said that, and Craig said it was "direct evidence". His own boy SPreston even acknowledges this as hearsay.

You are the one who has either "missed the point" or have simply not been following this thread.

I never said otherwise did I? I brought up the possibility of things happening outside of the frame of those shots. I never said there was footage of a flyover. If you had such a simple case here, you would not be trying sooo hard to win it.

Once again remember we are talking about the CIT's "flyover" nonsense. This does not allow for anything happening outside of the frame of those shots. They are locked into their theory now, and to stray from that makes them look like fools to the people they already have fooled.

You are wrong, I am not trying to "win" anything. I think what the CIT does is disgusting, deceptive, and they prey on the likes of many who are willing to accept anything other than what the witnesses report. Sure, they will try and twist it, but it all boils down to one thing, the plane impacted the building.