Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Lillydale
'Hey, if we create some weird random damage that seems too absurd to bother with that will really make it look believable. We can smash up this guys windshield with a lightpole and then people will never believe we would do that just to stage the scene. Just remember to tell Boger which way to say the plane was flying. I cannot stress that last one enough.'

So that's your theory at last. Some bizarro notion that a 90 ton plane crashing can be faked to fool all those professionals and basically intelligent people.

Somehow a plane can leave Dulles Airport at 8:20 be tracked in the air as it is flown right into the Pentagon at 9:37. There is massive wreckage consistent with the same plane. Later DNA of the passengers is identified.

Somehow all this was planted to cover up some - get this - some other plane flying over and preplanted bombs being set off. Oh yeah the people on the flight were murdered somewhere else.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by mmiichael]

Don't forget, all the people who say the plane impacted the Pentagon were deceived by an optical illusion, in which the flyover plane's 140 dB engine roar was somehow muted.

It sounds silly when you type it all out like that, doesn't it?

[edit on 21-12-2009 by 767doctor]

reply to post by 767doctor


True! Don't forget also, PFT drew a flight path for CIT's alleged flyover witness. It takes flight 77 to the RIGHT of the impact point. This means is was a fly AROUND!

Originally posted by ImAPepper
PFT drew a flight path for CIT's alleged flyover witness. It takes flight 77 to the RIGHT of the impact point. This means is was a fly AROUND!

Gee! Maybe the plane had to circle around to co-ordinate with those light poles being knocked down and windshield smashed by secret agents.

Timing is everything when you're faking a crash of something the size of a Boeing 757.







[edit on 21-12-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Alfie1
Anyway, if you prefer to believe that he is right about where the plane was in relation to a gas station and wrong about crashing into the Pentagon so be it. Let others decide as they will.

Where did I ever state that I believed that, Alfie1?

Remember your first post to me, in this thread was based upon an incorrect premise of your's about what you thought I believed. It appears that you have not learnt, as you're continuing to claim something about me, which is false.

You will need to quote me where I stated that I believe Boger's claim about NoC but not about the impact. Your failure to do so will be your admission that you have attributed another of your false beliefs to me.

[edit on 20-12-2009 by tezzajw]

tezzajw

I said "if you believe". But what does it matter if I make a wrong assumption about you ? You give every indication of being a noc/flyover fanatic and then you get an attack of the vapours if that is what you are taken for.

You implied that I am an " official government story supporter ", whatever that is. Despite my uncertainty about what that is I don't think it accurately describes me but I am not getting my knickers in a twist over it.

How about debating the issues rather than your paranoia ?

Originally posted by Alfie1
You give every indication of being a noc/flyover fanatic and then you get an attack of the vapours if that is what you are taken for.

Alfie1, from your first ever post directed to me, right up to this post, you are still trying to insert your mistaken beliefs about me onto the screen.

Perhaps it may be wise for you to cease your ill-informed conjecture about what a person may be thinking or what they may believe. Your track record has not been accurate with your incorrect assumptions.

I've spent pages in this thread wanting someone to prove that the light pole hit the taxi and all I read is handwaving, along with a faith based belief in the word of Lloyde.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by JPhish
His belief that the plane hit the building can be logically attributed to respondent conditioning; explicated in the car analogy I presented in previous posts.

Your "proof" is based on your assumption of respondent conditioning.

straw man No it's not. Attempt to actually read the posts before responding to them. Alfie said that it was more probable Sean Boger was mistaken about the flight path;

I proved that Alfie is wrong for these reasons listed in order of importance in descending order.

1. His NOC description of the planes approach is corroborated by CIT's video witnesses

His NOC description of the planes approach is also corroborated by other video witnesses featured in "the news" on 9-11.
(Corroborating testimony)

2. Sean was in a better position to see the flight path than the explosion area.
(Vantage point),

3. Sean was predisposed to believe the plane crashed.
(Respondent conditioning),

4. He may be hesitant to say the plane didn’t crash, considering he works for the government.
(Conflict of Interest)

5. When recanting his tale concerning the explosion, he was likely manipulated.
(Leading Questions)

6. Sean is an Expert Witness when it comes to planes in flight.
(Not an expert in plane crashes)

Based on probability and logic, it’s overwhelmingly obvious that Sean was more likely mistaken about the explosion, than the flight path.

That is not proof. Give yourself a logical fallacy for all posts that refer to this as proof.

Please read more carefully . . . It’s getting tiring explaining everything to you. What I said is proof that Alfie is wrong because he was basing his assumptions on probability. Based on probability, Sean Boger was incorrect about the plane hitting the pentagon and was correct about the flight path. All the information needed to come to that conclusion was in THIS POST.

Please provide a testable theory or you will be given another "failure to state" logical fallacy.

Everything I’ve said I’ve backed up and have committed no logical fallacies.

You have committed over 50.

Are you still unwilling to debate me on the subject pteridine?

I wonder why . . .

Originally posted by Alfie1
JPhish, Correct me if I am wrong but are you not saying that Sean was "mistaken about a large jet crashing yards away " which is precisely what I said ?

Sorry but you’re wrong. Your post, the way it was structured, was questioning the distance at which the plane crashed from him and not whether the plane crashed or not. Your statement alludes to the possibility that the plane crashed, but it is our contention that it did not crash at all.

Given his clear description and the other factors I mentioned earlier I think this is absurd.

Except you left out integral factors . . . It’s obvious you did not properly read the links in THIS POST.

We obviously wont agree on it so I am quite happy for others to make up their own minds.

As long as they know your conclusions were derived through weak inductive reasoning while mine were procured from logic; I have no problem with that.

[edit on 12/22/2009 by JPhish]

reply to post by JPhish


Interesting theory you have there (respondant conditioning).

Many of the witnesses were interviewed immediately after the event on the day and they had no doubts at all about the plane having impacted the building causing all the visible damage including the trail of damage leading up to the building.

When do you suppose this 'conditioning' took place?

Got any anything solid to support that idea?

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by JPhish

 

Interesting theory you have there (respondant conditioning).

It's not an interesting theory, it's an interesting fact.

The presence of Respondent Conditioning on 9-11 is non debatable and it's after affects are overwhelmingly obvious when reviewing all of the video witnesses presented thus far in this thread.
CIT Video Witnesses
Witnesses on video ("the news") I’ve presented in this thread

Many of the witnesses were interviewed immediately after the event on the day and they had no doubts at all about the plane having impacted the building causing all the visible damage including the trail of damage leading up to the building. When do you suppose this 'conditioning' took place? Got any anything solid to support that idea? [/

You are either trolling or don’t quite understand what respondent conditioning is. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are merely confused.

Read the “Car Analogy” link in THIS POST.

After reading that post in its entirety, if you still don’t understand, I will explain it to you . . .

[edit on 12/21/2009 by JPhish]

reply to post by JPhish


I've read the linked ideas previously.

Maybe you've missed the point though: Perhaps there's a timeframe for such 'conditioning' in the case of statements collected months or years after the event IE CIT interviews but what about those witnesses interviewed live on the day outside the burning building. They all had the same story in general - plane hit building with a degree of variance on the finer details as can be expected from witness testimony just as your car crash example demonstrates.

When did they get their 'conditioning' session?

To me, they were simply telling it like they saw it and no-one even hinted at a 'flyover'.

Something obvious about this idea of 'respondent conditioning' that I'm certain has occurred to other interested parties:

It serves to cause a degree of healthy skepticism when viewing witness accounts. The CIT theory of an alternate flight path and/or no impact is based on what?
Witness accounts taken a long time after the event with not other supporting evidence at all.

reply to post by JPhish


"The presence of Respondent Conditioning on 9-11 is non debatable and it's after affects are overwhelmingly obvious when reviewing all of the video witnesses presented thus far in this thread"

So, now you have decided that it's a non-dabatable fact. You determined that Sean accurately described the flight path but was conditioned into believing that the aircraft struck the building. You are unbiased and disinterested, of course. Whatever would we do without your incisive logic?
Give yourself a few more logic fault scores along with yet another "failure to state." You should be really good at this logic stuff by the time you repeat the intro course for the third time.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by JPhish

 

So, now you have decided that it's a non-dabatable fact.

No, I haven’t decided that respondent conditioning occurring on 9-11 is a non debatable fact. It IS a non debatable fact.

You determined that Sean accurately described the flight path but was conditioned into believing that the aircraft struck the building.

From a purely mathematical standpoint it is more probable that he described the correct flight path but was mistaken as to the outcome.

All of the facts supporting what I just said are HERE

You are unbiased and disinterested, of course. Whatever would we do without your incisive logic?

Your glib remarks which appeal to flattery and entice a potential straw man argument are not needed.

Give yourself a few more logic fault scores along with yet another "failure to state." You should be really good at this logic stuff by the time you repeat the intro course for the third time.

I can’t even begin to rebuke what you just said because it is simply that ludicrous. When you feel as if you are capable of competently debating the subject with me, accept my member debate challenge. Until then, please stop trolling.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by JPhish

 

I've read the linked ideas previously.

. . . really?

Maybe you've missed the point though: Perhaps there's a timeframe for such 'conditioning' in the case of statements collected months or years after the event IE CIT interviews but what about those witnesses interviewed live on the day outside the burning building.

You don’t understand what Respondent Conditioning is . . . I can use classical conditioning to make someone believe or do something in less than 10 seconds. It does not require days, months or years . . . Only seconds are necessary.

They all had the same story in general - plane hit building with a degree of variance on the finer details as can be expected from witness testimony just as your car crash example demonstrates.

You’re going to have to support that statement with valid evidence that can be scrutinized. Because based on the video witnesses presented thus far in this thread. What you just said is untrue. The vast majority of the witnesses presented do not even claim that they saw the plane go into the building. I’m pretty sure that Mike Walter is the only one who distinctly makes that claim. Also . . . Most of their accounts have VERY significant discrepancies.

When did they get their 'conditioning' session?

I can’t believe that I actually need to explain this . . .

Prior to the Pentagon event;
They were told that 2 planes were hijacked by terrorists.
They were told those 2 planes were flown and crashed into important buildings.
They were told that other planes had been hijacked by terrorists.
They were told that all non hijacked planes were being grounded.

Whether they were told this “information” by friends, relatives, the tv, the radio, their boss, or even an enemy, it doesn’t matter.

This is classical conditioning, it definitely happened and it is non debatable.

To me, they were simply telling it like they saw it and no-one even hinted at a 'flyover'.

There is a big difference between what people perceive/recall and what actually occurred. Especially when factoring in hindsight biased and Classical Conditioning.

[edit on 12/22/2009 by JPhish]

One thing that really bugs me about the witness bashing is some people
will say, "after all of these years, witnesses are prone to error from memory".

If that is true, how is it possible that several witnesses whom never met,
were able to draw a flight path and describe an aircraft which was:

- Flying North of the gas station (Citgo)
- Moving slower than the alleged 462 knots (as reported in the flight data)
- Banking just after clearing the Annex (not supported in the FDR data)

There is quite a bit of 'fishy' stuff happening with certain witnesses like
Lloyd England and Mike Walter.

For instance, Mike Walter says he saw the plane banking.

If the plane was banking, it contradicts the flight data. If the plane was
banking it did not follow the 'official path'

A slight bank at 462 knots takes you WAYYYYYYY off course. In order to
hit the light poles, the aircraft MUST NOT BANK

Mike Walter also says the "wings folded" which contradicts the ASCE report
AND the animation of the damage done to the Pentagon.

Those are just a few peeves I have with the official story.

JPhish

For all your phsyco-babble and gobbledegook you are saying that Sean Boger was mistaken when he made a contemporary statement about a plane crashing yards from his position " I just watched it hit the building ", " I could actually hear the metal going through the building".
But completely right when he told CIT, years later, that he thought the plane was north of Citgo. An impression he can only have formed momentarily while in mortal fear " I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us "is what he said at the time.

It is a non-debateable fact that that does not accord with common sense.

Actually, I think people like you and tejjajw are re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. More information is being teased out of the FDR as we speak, have a look at the thread on here, and people like 911 files are marrying it up with the radar data. ( final radio altitude 4' (+/- 1' ).

I think it is another non-debateable fact that CIT/flyover supporters, already a minority even in the truther world, will look more and more like flat-earthers.

Originally posted by Alfie1...marrying it up with the radar data. ( final radio altitude 4' (+/- 1' ).

RADAR records down to four feet AGL? Am I reading your statement
incorrectly perhaps?

Originally posted by Alfie1
Actually, I think people like you and tejjajw

Like pteridine earlier in this thread, you have now resorted to personally insulting me by abusing my username. In numerous other replies to me, you have began with my username spelled correctly as tezzajw.

This has been noted, quoted and filed for future reference.

You admit to cherry picking Boger, by claiming that he is mistaken about some of his testimony but perfectly accurate about the rest. That's all I needed from you, Alfie1.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Alfie1
Actually, I think people like you and tejjajw

Like pteridine earlier in this thread, you have now resorted to personally insulting me by abusing my username. In numerous other replies to me, you have began with my username spelled correctly as tezzajw.

This has been noted, quoted and filed for future reference.

You admit to cherry picking Boger, by claiming that he is mistaken about some of his testimony but perfectly accurate about the rest. That's all I needed from you, Alfie1.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by tezzajw]

tezzajw

Sorry, I did not deliberately get your username wrong, its not something I do, it was a mistake.

Originally posted by Alfie1
For all your psycho-babble and gobbledegook you are saying that Sean Boger was mistaken when he made a contemporary statement about a plane crashing yards from his position

It is a non-debatable fact that that does not accord with common sense.

Actually, I think people like you and tejjajw are re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. More information is being teased out of the FDR as we speak,

I think it is another non-debatable fact that CIT/flyover supporters, already a minority even in the truther world, will look more and more like flat-earthers.

A routine passenger flight left a busy airport one morning 8 years ago and ended up crashed into the Pentagon 77 minutes later.

Even ignoring the statements of witnesses the vast amount of physical evidence has always precluded any other cause for the loss of the plane, death of it's passengers, damage at the Pentagon.

I've used less diplomatic language making reference to delusional states and the questionable mental health of those who have difficulty accepting this as a simple established historical event.

Originally posted by Alfie1
Sorry, I did not deliberately get your username wrong, its not something I do, it was a mistake.

Fair enough. Apology accepted.