Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

Let's try this again . . .

To OS believers;

I have provided witnesses on video that previously supported the OS but now either support the NOC flight path, are inconclusive, or have been impeached.

CIT has provided witnesses on video who all describe a NOC flight path.

I presented a "Hit and Run" analogy which elucidates why the witnesses for CIT are reliable and why certain aspects of their testimonies and others are redundant.

However we seem to have problems following proper logical digression concerning this evidence.

SO . . .

We're going to go back to the beginning so proper digression can occur.

I ask you one question.

A very simple question.

Was Lloyde England's cab impaled by a light-pole?

Answer in the form of:

"Yes/No, because (enter explanation here)"

Nothing more nothing less.

Just answer this one question and give an explanation.

[edit on 12/10/2009 by JPhish]

You're in the wrong thread, JPhish.

This thread is about the hijackers of AA77's attack on the Pentagon.

And what in creation is an "OS believer"? Is this another one of your confused mind-ramblings like claiming a "jet flew over the Pentagon" then a "jet did not fly over the Pentagon", then a "flew over the Pentagon" again?

It doesn't take a genious to know that the video of the attack was a fake... What where they thinking!

Originally posted by jthomas


And what in creation is an "OS believer"?

That would be someone that believes in the "Official Story."

Originally posted by jthomas
You're in the wrong thread, JPhish.

This thread is about the hijackers of AA77's attack on the Pentagon.

And what in creation is an "OS believer"? Is this another one of your confused mind-ramblings like claiming a "jet flew over the Pentagon" then a "jet did not fly over the Pentagon", then a "flew over the Pentagon" again?

Haven't you heard of "ONE FLEW OVER THE PENTAGON"

From what I gather, OS is code for what conflicts with whatever shared delusion is being floated. The Evil Government and it's Evil Agents with the Evil Media are trying to brainwash you into accepting something.

Like if you suggest that at 9:30 in the morning in a city with a million people thousands wouldn't mistake a 90 ton Boeing flying close to the ground at 400 mph - that's OS believing.




[edit on 10-12-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by Lillydale

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by scott3x

 

I do not know what else you expect. You are accusing me of misrepresenting someone else. What is it I did?

I accused you of claiming that Michael has been deliberately deceptive without providing evidence that this is the case.

Originally posted by Lillydale
I agreed that they misrepresented someone else.

Yes, many people on the truther side agree that he has misrepresented and distorted the viewpoints of many; I'm one of them.

Originally posted by Lillydale
I guess I can just say it was a mistake and you have to let it go now.

If both truthers and OSers could let go of making accusations concerning each other's behaviour without even providing evidence for the accusations and instead focus on why we disagree on what happened on 9/11, I'd be a very happy man.

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by jthomas


And what in creation is an "OS believer"?

That would be someone that believes in the "Official Story."

I already know you believe in "stories." But who cares?

Originally posted by JPhish

Was Lloyde England's cab impaled by a light-pole?

You think by now, one of the believers would show how it was done and prove it...

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by jthomas
You're in the wrong thread, JPhish.

This thread is about the hijackers of AA77's attack on the Pentagon.

And what in creation is an "OS believer"? Is this another one of your confused mind-ramblings like claiming a "jet flew over the Pentagon" then a "jet did not fly over the Pentagon", then a "flew over the Pentagon" again?

Haven't you heard of "ONE FLEW OVER THE PENTAGON"

From what I gather, OS is code for what conflicts with whatever shared delusion is being floated.

So it can mean anything our 9/11 "Truthers" here want it to mean.

The Evil Government and it's Evil Agents with the Evil Media are trying to brainwash you into accepting something.

Apparently 9/11 "Truthers" see these "ghosts" all around them.

Like if you suggest that at 9:30 in the morning in a city with a million people thousands wouldn't mistake a 90 ton Boeing flying close to the ground at 400 mph - that's OS believing.

When I saw that "OS" meant Oh S_ _ t. Instead, 9/11 "Truthers" see invisible Boeing 757s flying over the Pentagon.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by JPhish

Was Lloyde England's cab impaled by a light-pole?

You think by now, one of the believers would show how it was done and prove it...

Quite clearly you two believe light poles had wings and attacked the Pentagon.

Par for the course.

Originally posted by jthomas
Quite clearly you two believe light poles had wings and attacked the Pentagon.

Quite clearly you have no idea what you're typing about, jthomas.

You infer your own silly assumptions about people based on what you think they type, instead of what they actually type.

You will not be able to quote me where I believe that 'light poles had wings and attacked the Pentagon'. Your assumption is false and you have been proven wrong - again.

Why have you not been able to prove that the light pole hit the taxi, jthomas?

Originally posted by JPhish

Was Lloyde England's cab impaled by a light-pole?

Answer in the form of:

"Yes/No, because (enter explanation here)"

Yes, because no credible evidence has been provided to support an alternative sequence of events that refutes Lloyde's testimony that his cab was impaled by a light pole.

I would also suggest that the damage to his cab being consistent with his recollection of how it entered through his windshield also supports his case, along with the various photographs placing the cab, the light pole and Lloyde England himself alongside the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11.

reply to K J Gunderson's post #2356

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by scott3x
It seems to me that he never really understood what it was that KJ was saying he lied on. I tried to get him up to speed in post #2282, back on page 115, but he hasn't responded to it as of yet. It's possible that he missed it.

I will try this one last time...

As I mentioned earlier, I've taken Lilydale's suggestion that I transfer this discussion concerning Michael to another thread to heart, and so I have responded to KJ's post in the thread that I used to respond to Lilydale's post. My response can be seen here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 10-12-2009 by scott3x]

reply to post by Lillydale


Once again, I've responded to another post by Lilly concerning Michael in the new thread, here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by discombobulator

Originally posted by discombobulator
Yes, because no credible evidence has been provided to support an alternative sequence of events that refutes Lloyde's testimony that his cab was impaled by a light pole.

Have you seen any of CIT's videos, PFT's videos, loose change or Zeitgeist?

[edit on 10-12-2009 by scott3x]

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to post by discombobulator

 

Originally posted by discombobulator
Yes, because no credible evidence has been provided to support an alternative sequence of events that refutes Lloyde's testimony that his cab was impaled by a light pole.

Have you seen any of CIT's videos, PFT's videos, loose change or Zeitgeist?

Yes, I have seen them all with the exception of the most recent PFT videos.

reply to post by discombobulator

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by scott3x
Have you seen any of CIT's videos, PFT's videos, loose change or Zeitgeist?

Yes, I have seen them all with the exception of the most recent PFT videos.

Hm. How can you not find all those north of citgo gas station witnesses persuasive? Or how about PFT's discussion on how it would have been impossible to pull out of the dive the plane would have had to have made in order to show up low and level as seen by the 5 frame video? Speaking of the video, I believe I recall the blob in it going backwards sometime after the 5 frames. And why do you suppose that the video has September 12 stamped on it?

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to post by discombobulator

 

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by scott3x
Have you seen any of CIT's videos, PFT's videos, loose change or Zeitgeist?

Yes, I have seen them all with the exception of the most recent PFT videos.

Hm. How can you not find all those north of citgo gas station witnesses persuasive?

Persuasive about what, that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon as many of them claimed they did?

Regardless of that, the question that I answered was related specifically to Lloyde's taxi and whether or not it was impacted by a light pole. In the complete absence of a credible alternative sequence of events, the evidence at hand seems to support Lloyde's testimony.

Other than what you perceive as contradictions with the "official story", do you have any credible evidence that supports an alternative sequence of events where Lloyde England's testimony is an elaborate ruse?

Or how about PFT's discussion on how it would have been impossible to pull out of the dive the plane would have had to have made in order to show up low and level as seen by the 5 frame video?

What about the discussion? Exactly what makes PFT an authority on anything, especially now that they've been caught misrepresenting the FDR data (by one of their own memebers) and even turbofan is actively debunking them? Is your understanding of the components of discussion sufficient enough that you'd be able to detect if they were pulling your leg?

Speaking of the video, I believe I recall the blob in it going backwards sometime after the 5 frames.

Ok.

And why do you suppose that the video has September 12 stamped on it?

Because the time had been set incorrectly?

How do you suppose Lloyde England's cab was damaged?

reply to post by scott3x


Scuse me for just dropping in again but I too have viewed most of the presentations, even the longer ones.

Now if CIT had any prior credibility in my eyes they totally lost it with the G force calcs and in light of the most recent findings I expect there'd have to be some frantic re-editing going on right about now.

Lloyd's 'virtual confession' is another point that irks me. I can't find where he confesses to anything other than his cab being hit by a pole or part of a pole. For most of the 'interview' he's just playing along as he knows the CIT people and what they're about

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by scott3x

 

Now if CIT had any prior credibility in my eyes they totally lost it with the G force calcs and in light of the most recent findings I expect there'd have to be some frantic re-editing going on right about now.

CIT never goes back and corrects their work.

There are several misrepresentations of Joel Sucherman's testimony in addition to an egregious error made whilst demonstrating where the incoming airliner crossed Route 27, all of which Craig has since admitted to but simply couldn't care about.