What made you first suspect that these 9/11 conspiracy stories were false?

Originally posted by kaya82

What particular piece of evidence convinced you to accept it was a drone? And there would have had to be 4 drones if that were possible.

Originally posted by TWILITE22
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

I'll be the first to say I don't know the answers to 911,it's one of the reasons I don't post in these threads.I will say though there are too many unanswered questions to the official story that hasn't been addressed.

I find it very curious to say the least that a number of eye witnesses were all connected to the media and that is they way of the whole official version..it's the number of small things that just don't add up in my mind.Can the media lie?..yes have they been caught lying?..yes.Is the government capable of this?...yes..do they have the means?...yes..do they have the motive?..yes..should there be another independent investigation?...absolutely yes.
from one proud "damn conspiracy theorist"

Do you know where the headquarters for all the major news networks are? New York City and especially Manhattan. So it is unreasonable for those people to have been where they work at on a Tuesday morning?

And you are forgetting the thousands of regular people.

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by kaya82

What particular piece of evidence convinced you to accept it was a drone? And there would have had to be 4 drones if that were possible.

edit on 10/11/2011 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)

operation northwoods

9/11 is a modern day operation northwoods

Originally posted by kaya82

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by kaya82

What particular piece of evidence convinced you to accept it was a drone? And there would have had to be 4 drones if that were possible.

edit on 10/11/2011 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)

operation northwoods

9/11 is a modern day operation northwoods

I meant the actual physical evidence that convinced you. The "Operation Northwoods as what caused 9/11" is a conspiracy theory. So what airport did these drones take off from?

The real planes were on radar and in the transmissions from the air traffic controllers since they left Newark, New Jersey and Boston, Massachusetts.

Originally posted by kaya82

9/11 is a modern day operation northwoods

For once, I absolutely agree- the 9/11 staged event IS a modern day operation Northwoods. Exactly.

...namely, because Northwoods never happened. It was thrown into the trash and the guy who came up with it was sacked.

Originally posted by TWILITE22
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

I'll be the first to say I don't know the answers to 911,it's one of the reasons I don't post in these threads.I will say though there are too many unanswered questions to the official story that hasn't been addressed.

Like what, exactly? Every time I ask this, it ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS turns out to be something that has already been documented ten years ago, but the truthers didn't know it because they get all their information from those damned fool conspiracy web sites trying to sell T-shirts.

I find it very curious to say the least that a number of eye witnesses were all connected to the media and that is they way of the whole official version..it's the number of small things that just don't add up in my mind.Can the media lie?..yes have they been caught lying?..yes.Is the government capable of this?...yes..do they have the means?...yes..do they have the motive?..yes..should there be another independent investigation?...absolutely yes.

The offices of USA Today are right next to the Pentagon so of course lots of people who work for USA Today saw the impact. Those damned fool conspiracy web sites omit that inconvenient little detail and simply pass it off as "a number of eyewitnesses were all connected to the media" to make it scary sounding. It's like saying how "suspicious" the coincidence is that so many people who saw the impact of the towers happened to be New Yorkers.

You're simply grasping at any appearance of impropriety you can find to keep your conspiracy claims alive, here. You know this and so do I.

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by kaya82

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by kaya82

What particular piece of evidence convinced you to accept it was a drone? And there would have had to be 4 drones if that were possible.

edit on 10/11/2011 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)

operation northwoods

9/11 is a modern day operation northwoods

I meant the actual physical evidence that convinced you. The "Operation Northwoods as what caused 9/11" is a conspiracy theory. So what airport did these drones take off from?

The real planes were on radar and in the transmissions from the air traffic controllers since they left Newark, New Jersey and Boston, Massachusetts.

I dont know the answers to your questions, like i said we will never know the truth. But you appear to have the answers to everything regarding 9/11 so why are you on a conspiracy site bickering with complete strangers

Doesnt add up

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Right. It is apparent that you have not done your research correctly, or watched only one particular documentary. I do not know about the one you mentioned (well I know about it, but never watched it) so I cannot say whether they really lied or not, but you say some things, that just aren't true. Mainly about the pentagon thing.

You said there were hundreds of eye witnesses that it was a plane that crashed there. I haven't heard of any to be honest, there are none mentioned in any document I've seen or heard of. As well said that there was clear plane wreckage around the site. Well the thing is - there wasn't. There was some junk lying around, but not nearly enough for it to be a plane. Google some of the recent plane crash sites and compare the wreckage and the area affected. There was no crater on the ground whatsoever and you somehow seem to miss the fact, that the hole is way too small for a plane the size they claim it was. There was only a small hole in the wall at first, it collepsed only later. No sign of wings hitting the ground or the wall. Besides, you have surely seen how big the fireball was, when the planes hit the twin towers. Have you seen the pentagon explosion footage? It shows something small flying towards the wall and a relatively small explosion. If the plane hit there, why were there no significant burn marks on the ground form thousands of gallons of cerosine burning?

Now I'm trying to say only one thing - it is not good to watch just one documentary or read just one source. I've watched through a lot of footage and a lot of witness statements and one thing I think I can say for a fact is, that it wasn't a plane that hit the pentagon. If it did, it must have been a small one, what could account for the low amount of wreckage, small hole and no crater, but then again wouldn't have the necessary force to rip through the reinforced structure as it did. And there still is the dirrect footage that contradicts any possible plane or man piloted thing. Check it out, you'll see what I'm talking about.

Edit: A quite nice piece of documentary is 9/11 in plane sight. Points out some things and leaves questions open. One of the many I have seen... Some things could have been said other way, but all in all a nice piece.

Originally posted by kaya82

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by kaya82

I dont know the answers to your questions, like i said we will never know the truth. But you appear to have the answers to everything regarding 9/11 so why are you on a conspiracy site bickering with complete strangers

Doesnt add up

Did you read the name of this thread? What made you first suspect that these 9/11 conspiracy stories were false? so that is why I am here. I was addressing the OP. And the answers are what everyone has, if they would just believe they are the answers.

So would you like to tell people out there that I must be a government agent getting money to come on sites to disagree with "Truthers"? There can't be that much mistrust of the truth that now the last conspiracies are of those who believe the actual events are getting money.

The answers are from evidence. Evidence that has presented for 10 years. And I think I must be presenting the evidence with common sense so much so that it is hard to get around. The truth will always be disputed only to be replaced with falsehoods designed to look like truth. I have not given one bit of evidence from the government, I have given evidence from eyewitnesses to the event, the radio transmissions, the flight calls, the calls from the towers themselves and video that was not edited. Not one time did I quote a sentence from NIST. I posted the video of the discussion of Dylan Avery and Popular Mechanics, from the original television show.

I even used the conspiracy theorists sites themselves to show their contradictions and how they edited video to remove the complete sentences of the witnesses. And because I was able to do this, it made you nervous enough to fall back on yet another disproven conspiracy theory and now you must create one more to deny the actual events.

Would you as a Brit like for me to say that 7/7 never really happened? That was a figment of the BBC's imagination to convince the world that the British government did this as an inside job. But I do not believe that was either, it was a actual event.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by NWOwned
We must demand they prove their OS claims.

Prove a 757 hit the Pentagon... FOR REAL and not just say it, not just show obviously doctored and 'staged' post crash photos.

It's a fair question. Here's a compilation of eyewitnesses who were there and who personally saw the plane hit the Pentagon...

Eyewitnesses to the Pentagon attack

...and here is the best simulation I've seen of the attack and presents the evidence on which it is based...

So, right now are you thinking, "hey wait a minute, those damned fool conspiracy web sites never told me about any of this!" or, are you simply going to accuse all the witnesses of being secret government agents and all the evidence manufactured and planted? If it's the former, congratulations, you're starting to think for yourself, and if it's the latter, then why are you wasting my time asking for proof when you're simply going to invent whatever reason you need to for why you don't have to believe it?

Now this video is nice and all, but there is something you must have overlooked. See the pink and blue marks that are shown on the building, where the wings and tail were supposed to have hit? Now check out some other video footage of the building how it looked right after the explosion and you will see, there is no such damage consistent with what your simulation shows. As mentioned before, the documentary "9/11 in plane sight" discusses this topic as well and shows clearly, that it is highly improbable that the plane actually hit there. Here is a part of the documentary:

www.youtube.com...

Especially at the end of this piece you can see a clear view of the front wall before the ceiling collapse. You will notice that the upper floors, where the tail should have hit were interiely intact - actually you can see foam stains on the windows that have not even shattered.

Now judging by the distance the plane was supposed to have flown, it must have carried around 2/3rds of the fuel reserves still. Take off weights of a 757 ranges from 220 - 250 thousand pounds. So can you explain then how a plane (that weights approx 100 tons and carries about 8.5 thousand gallons of fuel) flies into the pentagon and leaves a hole not bigger than 16 feet across, leaves no physical damage on the sides and top floors where the wings and tail were supposed to have hit and leaves equipment right next to the impact area inside the building entirely intact? Remember the fireball from north and south tower after the planes hit? Remember that they claimed that the fire from all the fuel was so hot, that it weakened the structure so much for it to fall? And you want to tell me, that the same kind of plane, with similar amount of fuel carried with it crashes into pentagon and leaves nothing but a relatively small hole, a little bit of collapsed roof (remember, it collapsed some time after impact) and no crater whatsoever with no huge fires anywhere else, just in the direct impact site? Now anyway you put it, that is nonsense.

Just for reference, remember all the fuss about flight 93, the one that the passengers reclaimed and that was supposed to have crashed into ground? Well, how is it possible then, that WCPO reported at 11:43 that day, which is more than an hour later than it was supposed to have crashed, that a 767 has emergency landed in Cincinnaty Ohio, because of suspicion of a bomb aboard. It was identified as flight 93.

Edit - sorry about the video - somehow it doesn't want to accept my video link. If it doesn't work, youtube search "911 In Plane Sight Part 2" It'll find a series of videos. That will be it.

Originally posted by Magicnet2
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Right. It is apparent that you have not done your research correctly, or watched only one particular documentary. I do not know about the one you mentioned (well I know about it, but never watched it) so I cannot say whether they really lied or not, but you say some things, that just aren't true. Mainly about the pentagon thing.

Then it may surprise you that I didn't simply show up here to spontaneously argue with people. I've been talking to many, many, MANY truthers for quite a number of years, and on many different boards, and I can tell you one thing with complete absolute positive certainty- You're signing onto these conspiracy stories becuase you've been fed a nonstop conveyor belt of nonsense. All your questions have been answered long ago. It's just that the bunch of hucksters feeding you these conspiracy stories are keeping the answers from you.

Allow me to show you...

You said there were hundreds of eye witnesses that it was a plane that crashed there. I haven't heard of any to be honest, there are none mentioned in any document I've seen or heard of.

EXHIBIT ONE: the eyewitness accounts those damned fool conspiracy websites aren't telling you about...

Eyewitness accounts of the Pentagon attack

Eyewitness account of Penny Elgas

As well said that there was clear plane wreckage around the site. Well the thing is - there wasn't. There was some junk lying around, but not nearly enough for it to be a plane.

EXHIBIT TWO: the aircraft wreckage at the Pentagon

Photos of wreckage found within the Pentagon

Aerospace engineer's analysis of engine parts found at the Pentagon

Google some of the recent plane crash sites and compare the wreckage and the area affected. There was no crater on the ground whatsoever and you somehow seem to miss the fact, that the hole is way too small for a plane the size they claim it was. There was only a small hole in the wall at first, it collepsed only later. No sign of wings hitting the ground or the wall.

EXHIBIT THREE: The effect of a high speed aluminum aircraft hitting a solid concrete wall:

Edit: A quite nice piece of documentary is 9/11 in plane sight. Points out some things and leaves questions open. One of the many I have seen... Some things could have been said other way, but all in all a nice piece.

EXHIBIT FOUR: You're getting all your information from those damned fool conspiracy web sites and you don't know they're lying to you:

Debunking the falsehoods within "IN PLANE SIGHT"

If this doesn't make you begin to suspect you've been lied to and that these conspiracy claims are false, then nothing will. Did you even know landing gear and engine parts were recovered from the Pentagon?

Originally posted by Magicnet2
[
Just for reference, remember all the fuss about flight 93, the one that the passengers reclaimed and that was supposed to have crashed into ground? Well, how is it possible then, that WCPO reported at 11:43 that day, which is more than an hour later than it was supposed to have crashed, that a 767 has emergency landed in Cincinnaty Ohio, because of suspicion of a bomb aboard. It was identified as flight 93.

This was a story that was released during the rush and confusion to find news about what was happening during 9/11, and has long been retracted. The plane that actually landed was Delta flight 1989.

Debunking the "flight 93 landing in Ohio" myth

This has been known for the last ten years. It's just that those hucksters peddling these conspiracy claims are deliberately misleading you and they don't want to tell you it's been retracted. Now, when I say you've simply been fed a lot of nonsense and all the information you've been looking for has been deliberately kept from you by those damned fool conspiracy websites, how am I wrong?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


When you became a member.

You work tirelessly to prove something unprovable and I commend your research and time spent putting together your case.

What are your thoughts on the latest 'reports' on the anthrax thing? That's one that kind of bothers me, never sat well in my stomach.

After all the 'official' version is we we're attacked by our own government.

reply to post by GoodOlDave



This is the transmission from Cleveland www.youtube.com...

WCPO is in Cincinnati, all the way across the state. Cincinnati's air port is located in Covington, Kentucky. That is why its airport code is CVG. WCPO reported the plane landed at Cleveland, while Cleveland very clearly says the plane turned away. The only other airport that could have possibly picked up this information would have been Pittsburgh and Pittsburgh did have it on radar.

Cleveland very clearly says "it turned to the East" along with the other pilots who actually saw the plane go East. Cincinnati is Southwest of Cleveland. And every time a plane goes into the air space that is picked up on radar for a particular airport, air traffic control always acknowledges the plane there. That is for safety to prevent mid-air collisions. The one pilot says "he's headed right for me".

This from eyewitnesses to the plane crash

Kelly Leverknight was watching news of the attacks when she heard the plane. "I heard the plane going over and I went out the front door and I saw the plane going down. It was headed toward the school, which panicked me, because all three of my kids were there. Then you heard the explosion and felt the blast and saw the fire and smoke."[69] Another witness, Eric Peterson, looked up when he heard the plane, "It was low enough, I thought you could probably count the rivets. You could see more of the roof of the plane than you could the belly. It was on its side. There was a great explosion and you could see the flames. It was a massive, massive explosion. Flames and then smoke and then a massive, massive mushroom cloud."[70] Val McClatchey had been watching footage of the attacks when she heard the plane. She saw it briefly, then heard the impact. The crash knocked out the electricity and phones. McClatchey grabbed her camera and took the only known picture of the smoke cloud from the explosion

Cleveland Center controllers, unaware the flight had crashed, notified the Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) at 10:07 that Flight 93 had a bomb on board and passed the last known position. This call was the first time the military was notified about the flight.

Cleveland Center kept it on radar as long as possible and called to report it to the authorities that there was a bomb on board. They never reported that it landed.

And this is the account from Pittsburgh www.post-gazette.com...

Full said Sopp told him that he had been informed by Pittsburgh International Airport's air traffic control tower "that there was a plane within 10 miles in the Pittsburgh airspace that they had no contact with whatsoever, and they had reason to believe it was possibly a hijacked aircraft, and they were taking appropriate action by moving personnel out of the control tower."

Because the radio was turned off, Pittsburgh reported that the plane was headed right toward the airport but crashed 14 miles away while Pittsburgh was getting their staff away from there because they felt it was going to hit them. So here, you have two airports reporting a plane that turned off its radio. Two airports that had not communicated with each other that morning.

reply to post by Magicnet2


Actually it was CNN's Aaron Brown who reported it first. WCPO reported this after Aaron Brown announced it.

At 10:37, CNN correspondent Aaron Brown, covering the collapse of the World Trade Center, announced, "We are getting reports and we are getting lots of reports and we want to be careful to tell you when we have confirmed them and not, but we have a report that a 747 is down in Pennsylvania, and that remains unconfirmed at this point."[76] He followed that up at 10:49 by reporting that, "We have a report now that a large plane crashed this morning, north of the Somerset County Airport, which is in western Pennsylvania, not too terribly far from Pittsburgh, about 80 miles or so, a Boeing 767 jet. Don't know whose airline it was, whose airplane it was, and we don't have any details beyond that which I have just given you." In the confusion, he also erroneously reported a second hijacked plane heading for the Pentagon after the crash of the first

The problem with WCPO is that they erroneously reported it almost an hour later after Aaron Brown announced it on CNN.

Originally posted by infinityoreilly
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

You work tirelessly to prove something unprovable and I commend your research and time spent putting together your case.

I will agree that many facets of the 9/11 attack are unprovable. For example, we will never know whether they really were nineteen hijackers bent on launching a suicide attack or six hijackers bent on launching a suicide attack and thirteen idiots who were duped into thinking it was a typical hijacking to get them to go along with it.

The point is, there is way, way more evidence showing it was an attack by Islamic terrorists than there is any evidence showing it was something other than an attack by Islamic terrorists.

What are your thoughts on the latest 'reports' on the anthrax thing? That's one that kind of bothers me, never sat well in my stomach.

In truth, I cannot make an informed opinion on the close to zero evidence we have. My personal opinion is that it was originally a small time terrorist attack by some irate with his own ax to grind, like the unibomber sending bombs on some anti-technology crusade, or that guy in Norway who blew up a government building and murdered a bunch of children for whatever the hell he was doing it for, and just by dumb coincidence he just happened to launch it at the same time as the 9/11 attack. After the 9/11 attack he knew he wouldn't NOT be linked to the 9/11 attack so he went to ground and never came back up.

I will be the first to admit this is my personal opinion and am basing this upon absolutely nothing.

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by kaya82

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by kaya82

I dont know the answers to your questions, like i said we will never know the truth. But you appear to have the answers to everything regarding 9/11 so why are you on a conspiracy site bickering with complete strangers

Doesnt add up

Did you read the name of this thread? What made you first suspect that these 9/11 conspiracy stories were false? so that is why I am here. I was addressing the OP. And the answers are what everyone has, if they would just believe they are the answers.

So would you like to tell people out there that I must be a government agent getting money to come on sites to disagree with "Truthers"? There can't be that much mistrust of the truth that now the last conspiracies are of those who believe the actual events are getting money.

The answers are from evidence. Evidence that has presented for 10 years. And I think I must be presenting the evidence with common sense so much so that it is hard to get around. The truth will always be disputed only to be replaced with falsehoods designed to look like truth. I have not given one bit of evidence from the government, I have given evidence from eyewitnesses to the event, the radio transmissions, the flight calls, the calls from the towers themselves and video that was not edited. Not one time did I quote a sentence from NIST. I posted the video of the discussion of Dylan Avery and Popular Mechanics, from the original television show.

I even used the conspiracy theorists sites themselves to show their contradictions and how they edited video to remove the complete sentences of the witnesses. And because I was able to do this, it made you nervous enough to fall back on yet another disproven conspiracy theory and now you must create one more to deny the actual events.

Would you as a Brit like for me to say that 7/7 never really happened? That was a figment of the BBC's imagination to convince the world that the British government did this as an inside job. But I do not believe that was either, it was a actual event.

edit on 10/11/2011 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)

were did i call you a disinfo agent? Now your putting words in my mouth.

What im saying is you are happy with the os so it makes no sense for you to frequent conspiracy sites that you feel are false.

The problem with you ppl is you cherry pick the eye witnesses that back up your fairy tale os but ignore the witnesses that contradict it.

Why do you care that ppl dont believe the os? The government made a blatent lie very early on during the attacks saying they had no idea terrorists would you planes as missiles yet the exact time the attacks took place norad were conducting the very same scenario. So your ok with your government lying but college kids like avery need to be punished

I couldnt care less what your opinion is regarding the london attacks your entitled to your opinion just let ppl have theirs

reply to post by GoodOlDave
Dave you and I both know there's no changing your mind and there's no changing mine,what I don't get is why you insist on starting these threads in the first place on this damn conspiracy site?In starting these threads you put in out there like a fishing expedition and then personally blast someone for not believing your position.In order to keep your sanity and others Dave just walk away give it a rest..If the official story is completely on the up and up why are there so many questioning it?Why are so many unsettled with the official version?Why is most of the evidence that would put this to rest still hidden behind national security?Why is it so important to convince others of what you believe?

By no means is this an attack against you,I have no desire to be a target in this never ending debate.I have no wish to change anyone's beliefs in 911 because it has become somewhat of a religion on the internet.I'm just curious as to why you believe what you hold on to like it's a part of your soul?Is it really that important to you to change someones mind?

Originally posted by TWILITE22
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Dave you and I both know there's no changing your mind and there's no changing mine,what I don't get is why you insist on starting these threads in the first place on this damn conspiracy site?In starting these threads you put in out there like a fishing expedition and then personally blast someone for not believing your position.

Unfortunately, that's the problem right there. You're admitting that there is absolutely nothing on the face of the Earth that will ever convince you that your conspiracy stories are wrong. I don't know whether you'll simply make up excuses that everything is the work of armies of secret government agents or whether you don't even bother to read it to begin with, but either way, the problem isn't with the evidence. The problem is that you don't want to accept the fact your conspiracy stories are false.

As for me, I have stated my position many times already- if you don't agree with the 9/11 commission report, it therefore becomes your obligation to provide us with an alternative scenario that betetr fits the facts, and that's ALL the facts, not just one or two cherry picked factoid. Simply running in and screaming "the 9/11 report is a pack of lies" and then running away giggling is unconvincing and childish, and I thoroughly detest the truther practice of spreading outright lies in the attempt to sucker me into believing what they want me to believe. Dylan Avery's claims of "secret government agents smuggling some blue tarp covered thing out of the Pentagon that turned out to be a triage tent being brought INTO the Pentagon", and "Flight 93 secretly landed in Ohio that turned out to be flight 1989" are sterling cases in point. If you want to convince me my position is wrong, fine...but don't lie to me.

What I don't get is when you constantly claim "the government is always lying to me", which I certainly don't deny...but when these damned fool conspiracy websites have been caught red handed lying to YOU it's as if you don't care. You'll simply repeat whatever drivel they tell you as gospel even if they said farts don't stink...and you turn around and wonder why I'm not taking anything you say seriously. Would you mind explaining this rationale to me?

In order to keep your sanity and others Dave just walk away give it a rest..If the official story is completely on the up and up why are there so many questioning it?Why are so many unsettled with the official version?Why is most of the evidence that would put this to rest still hidden behind national security? Why is it so important to convince others of what you believe?

The reason why "so many people are question it" is obvious- there is a significant vacuum of information simply because the government is leaving a lot of gaps in the record. For one thing, why the flip did we invade Iraq on such pitifully scant information, and who's the idiot who sent the interceptors wandering all over creation and flying in circles durign the 9/11 attack? Nature abhores a vaccuum, so hordes of con artists and hucksters are trying to fill it by circulating these made up stories about how sinister government agents are constantly plotting to murder us all. Heck, not a few posts back someone had the unrepentent gall to accuse the NYFD of conspiring to murder 343 of their brother firefighters.

Let's face it, noone watched the towers falling and spontaneously believed the buildings were destroyed by lasers from outer space. One of those damned fool 9/11 conspiracy web sites put the idea into the truthers' heads. (namely, Dr. Judy Wood). All I'm doing is pointing the fact out to you.

By no means is this an attack against you,I have no desire to be a target in this never ending debate.I have no wish to change anyone's beliefs in 911 because it has become somewhat of a religion on the internet.I'm just curious as to why you believe what you hold on to like it's a part of your soul?Is it really that important to you to change someones mind?

Becuase it's my firm believe that sooner or later, some innocent bystander is going to get killed over these idiotic conspiracy stories floating around the Internet.

9/11 Conspiracy theorist fires upon police

Originally posted by kaya82
Originally posted by WarminIndy
Originally posted by kaya82
Originally posted by WarminIndy

What im saying is you are happy with the os so it makes no sense for you to frequent conspiracy sites that you feel are false.

What is the Mantra on THIS site? - Perhaps that's what he is doing

The problem with you ppl is you cherry pick the eye witnesses that back up your fairy tale os but ignore the witnesses that contradict it.

Sigh...
OK, supply us with the witnesses that contradict the OS. Were you thinking of the *one* guy who saw the plane fly up and over the Pentagon? Or was it the *one* guy who saw a small comuter plane? Or was it the two Pentagon police officers that disagree with the official flight path - BUT still watched the plane hit the Pentagon?
IF you do your homework, you'll find the number of eyewitnesses who corroborate the OS so far outnumbers the few who don't that really, the cherry picking is clearly on your side of the equation.