Official Story Shill Crushed By Truther/Researcher in Radio Debate!

Originally posted by WetBlanky
Oh, you're one of those guys who doesn't know the area. The Pentagon is not in DC and is hardly visible from there. Plus you are obviously not familiar with Reagan National Airport which has large airliners flying in and away all day. It is not an uncommon sight to see a plane over, next to, or ascending away from the pentagon every 2-3 minutes all day. A huge, gigantic 10 story fireball isn't a common sight and that is where most people would have their attention drawn towards.

Ahem...here's a photo of the Pentagon complex. The Washington monument is clearly visible in the background, meaning that visitors at the Washington monument would be able to see the Pentagon.

FYI from this angle, the plane strike was on the left side of the building. This means this imaginary flyover of yours would have passed over a marina, TWO highways, and all of Washignton D.C.

Also, CIT has provided evidence that people saw the flyover and flyaway. From Roosevelt Roberts to co-workers of ANC worker Erik Dihle to witnesses interviewed by Dave Statter.

They have done no such thing, and if you're claiming they did, you are lying. Not a day ago someone showed a map showing the path eyewitnesses saw the plane fly into the Pentagon. The point was that there were many different accounts that differ from the "official" path, but the fact remains that eyewitnesses specifically saw the plane fly into the Pentagon. I'm going by your fellow conspiracy truthers' information here, not mine.

Just because you keep moving goal posts and make irrational demands that some flyover witness or witnesses have to come forward in order for you to believe, doesn't mean CIT hasn't proven their case
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence..

So if you're acknowledging the CIT haven't proved their case because there's an absence of evidence then why are you subscribing to the theory as if it were true? You need to acknowledge it's a theory rather than fact...and a pretty ridiculous one at that.

Do you understand that the north side flight path plane cannot cause he physical damage?

As you are basing your opinion of what the damage is entirely on grainy smoke filled photos taken hundreds of yards away rather than an up close, personal inspection, your comment is speculation at best, and a deliberate attempt to sow abject paranoia at worst.

...or am I wrong and you actually inspected the damage to the Pentagon personally?

Are you just making up answers as you go along?

It sure sounds like it.

The FBI does have the ability as well as the mandate to carry out criminal investigations but are you saying the CIA and NSA are specialists in criminal investogation?

Are you saying that reports were created and passed on to members of Congress?

If you are then provide some proof of that, please.

Wasn't there supposed to be two phases to the official investigation of 9/11 but only one failed investigation was carried out?

While you are at it can you explain why the war criminal Henry Kissinger was proposed as the head of the 9/11 Commission and actually served as the head of the 9/11 Commission for some time?

Were the witnesses related to this OP interviewed by the CIA, FBI, NSA or the 9/11 Commission?

If not, why not?

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by BRAVO949

 

And what people like you never understand is that the investigation was carried out by the FBI, CIA, NSA, and a host of other government agencies. The 9/11 Commission was not supposed to duplicate any investigations done by other agencies. It's primary purpose was to look into the history, the timeline of events that day, and more importantly, the Governments response that day. Which confirmed what most of us already knew. That the US Government had long since lost the ability to effectively respond to aerial attacks and that there is too much of a CYA mentality.

Originally posted by BRAVO949

If amateurs could do this sort of thing then every military in the world is wasting its money training commando troops.

Could you explain this comment, please? What you mean by it? I know you don't know much, if anything, about airplanes or aviation, military or otherwise, based on your A-10 comment a few pages back, but what do you mean by this?

If an amateur could crash a 757 or 767 into a building or the ground, the military is wasting its money training commando troops? That makes *absolutely* no sense whatsoever.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by WetBlanky
Oh, you're one of those guys who doesn't know the area. The Pentagon is not in DC and is hardly visible from there. Plus you are obviously not familiar with Reagan National Airport which has large airliners flying in and away all day. It is not an uncommon sight to see a plane over, next to, or ascending away from the pentagon every 2-3 minutes all day. A huge, gigantic 10 story fireball isn't a common sight and that is where most people would have their attention drawn towards.

Ahem...here's a photo of the Pentagon complex. The Washington monument is clearly visible in the background, meaning that visitors at the Washington monument would be able to see the Pentagon.

FYI from this angle, the plane strike was on the left side of the building. This means this imaginary flyover of yours would have passed over a marina, TWO highways, and all of Washignton D.C.

Also, CIT has provided evidence that people saw the flyover and flyaway. From Roosevelt Roberts to co-workers of ANC worker Erik Dihle to witnesses interviewed by Dave Statter.

They have done no such thing, and if you're claiming they did, you are lying. Not a day ago someone showed a map showing the path eyewitnesses saw the plane fly into the Pentagon. The point was that there were many different accounts that differ from the "official" path, but the fact remains that eyewitnesses specifically saw the plane fly into the Pentagon. I'm going by your fellow conspiracy truthers' information here, not mine.

Just because you keep moving goal posts and make irrational demands that some flyover witness or witnesses have to come forward in order for you to believe, doesn't mean CIT hasn't proven their case
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence..

So if you're acknowledging the CIT haven't proved their case because there's an absence of evidence then why are you subscribing to the theory as if it were true? You need to acknowledge it's a theory rather than fact...and a pretty ridiculous one at that.

Do you understand that the north side flight path plane cannot cause he physical damage?

As you are basing your opinion of what the damage is entirely on grainy smoke filled photos taken hundreds of yards away rather than an up close, personal inspection, your comment is speculation at best, and a deliberate attempt to sow abject paranoia at worst.

...or am I wrong and you actually inspected the damage to the Pentagon personally?

Are you sure? Id say the perspective at ground level is not that good but meh, as usual, you show that your search for "truth" is a lie... So from ground level in the monument area you can see through trees and all to see the pentagon building/complex. Man you yanks are advanced, never would have imagined it...

But hey, whatever floats your boat.

reply to post by WetBlanky

Oh, you're one of those guys who doesn't know the area. The Pentagon is not in DC and is hardly visible from there. Plus you are obviously not familiar with Reagan National Airport which has large airliners flying in and away all day. It is not an uncommon sight to see a plane over, next to, or ascending away from the pentagon every 2-3 minutes all day.

I actually do know the area, very very well. You can easily see the Pentagon from just across the Potomac, along the shore. In the National Mall area, specifically.

And, the airliners in/out of the DCA airport.....everyone local knows the normal routes. They must always follow the Potomac River, when departing to the North. Arrivals, on clear days, fly the "River Visual" when landing South...following the River South/East bound.

Departures/arrivals that are operating South of the field also follow the River down there, all of this is to prevent as much as possible, overflying residential areas, and thus cuts down on noise.

Furthermore, the entire National Mall region is a Prohibited Area (P-56) from the surface, up to 18,000 feet MSL.

Hundreds of thousands of people who are familiar with the normal air traffic flows would have noticed something "wrong", if an airliner flew over any part of the city of DC East of the Pentagon!

And, of course.....the radar information does not show the Boeing 757 leaving the vicinity of the Pentagon, either.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by WetBlanky

 

Hmmmm.......I don't worry about his arguments or theories. Because I know he is full of hot air. I also know that he is a charlatan. He and his cohort badgered a friend of mine for weeks about what he had seen that day from the parking lot of the Pentagon. Rest assured , the pitifully few accounts used by Ranke, do not come close to presenting an accurate picture of what happened that day.


But go ahead, keep swallowing everything he tells you.

Please. Unknown friend. Anonymous poster. Unsubstantiated claims. There was no witness in the parking lot. You have no friend who was badgered. It's confirmed with CIT.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Hey Dave you should have shown some pics that were taken just after 911...









stevenwarran.blogspot.com...

For some unexplained reason dirt mounds were erected at strategic points around the pentagon, making it almost impossible to see the impact point, coincidentally, from anywhere but where Llodys cab, and the downed light poles was staged. That was set up to clear the bridge of witnesses imo.

The largest mound hid the view of the impact point from the Citgo station. Which means the CIT witnesses could not have seen the actual impact as OSers suggest.

How come you OSers never mention this, or talk about it? Who erected those mounds, and what the hell for?
They were erected just before 911, and removed right after it was all cleaned up.

reply to post by Saltarello



Exactly. He apparently thinks witnesses float in the sky.

He is presenting the absence of evidence as evidence. It simply doesn't work that way.

Besides people from DC, if they did see anything, would see it post-explosion, during the flyaway. At that point it would appear to be a "second plane" to them.



Other Flyover/away witnesses and connections:
1. Officer Roosevelt Roberts @ east loading dock
i42.tinypic.com...
2. Witnesses who were co-workers of Erik Dihle at ANC who said that "a bomb hit and a jet kept going"
z3.invisionfree.com...
3. Dewitt Roseborough
z3.invisionfree.com...
4. Potentially witnesses interviewed by Dave Statter on 9/11. Witness(es) said "pilot tried to avert the building" and the plane "went to the side of the building and not directly in"
5. Maria De La Cerda reports to the Center for Military History on Feb 6, 2002 that she thought it crashed on "the other side" and confirmed to us in 2008 that she did not think it was a side impact but rather that it was "on top".

But let's not forget the north of Citgo flight path proves a flyover because the plane on that path cannot cause any of the physical damage. From the 5 light poles(most importantly pole 1) to the generator trailer, to first floor external and internal damage leading to the c ring hole.

reply to post by WetBlanky


But does that include all the witness reports? If it only cherry-picks the ones that agree (though dissenting opinions are no-doubt interesting), then it is not wholly accurate, as how does it explain away the witnesses who corroborate the official story?

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by WetBlanky

 

But does that include all the witness reports? If it only cherry-picks the ones that agree (though dissenting opinions are no-doubt interesting), then it is not wholly accurate, as how does it explain away the witnesses who corroborate the official story?

They are lying, they are mistaken, they were made up witnesses?

The only witnesses that can be considered 100% real are the CIT witnesses imo. The others are just names with claims.

None of the witnesses can claim to have 100% seen the plane impact the pentagon, as the impact point cold not be seen. Anyone who says they did added that from assumption, witnesses do that all the time. The fly off could have easily been missed because of the fireball, and smoke, and simply shock from seeing such a thing. The mind races in those situations, and you are never going to clearly see what happened.

reply to post by ANOK


Can you prove this claim about the erected mounds of earth? Or is it one of those ones where you look at a photo and persuade yourself it means what you want it to?

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by WetBlanky

 

But does that include all the witness reports? If it only cherry-picks the ones that agree (though dissenting opinions are no-doubt interesting), then it is not wholly accurate, as how does it explain away the witnesses who corroborate the official story?

Sounds like you are not too familiar with CIT. They've re-interviewed published witnesses and found previously unknown ones along the low-flying treetop level flight path. Their focus, and rightly so, is in the basin where the gas station sits, which is the last building or landmark before the alleged impact zone. They followed up on a lead which was sgt Lagasse telling dick Eastman he was on the starboard side of the plane while he was refueling his patrol car at the Citgo. When CIT began to interview credible witnesses along the flight path area, it was discovered that the plane veered from the official path and onto the north side. No one was cherry picked. These are people who were in the area, already published, and available for contact. They are all seeing the plane on the north side from different and opposing vantage points.

CIT has interviewed tons of witnesses besides the 13 crucial ones. No one else can or has contradicted the flight path. No one will or has gone on the record on camera on or next to the Citgo property and placed the plane definitively on the south side of the Citgo. That's because no witnesses exist who saw the south path.

No one had ever asked any ofthe witnesses which side of the gas station the plane was on. No one ever knew this detail. Now that cit have found people who were close enough and in a position to tell which side it was on now the goal post moving skeptics and online ops have say they were all "mistaken", "playing a joke", "a hoax", "a theory", "misremembering", "parallaxin'" about the same thing in the exact same way.

Again, no one is cherry picked. There tons of other witnesses they interviewed. Some deduced the impact and couldn't even see the pentagon. None of them could refute the north of gas station flight path.

Originally posted by ANOK
They are lying, they are mistaken, they were made up witnesses?

The only witnesses that can be considered 100% real are the CIT witnesses imo. The others are just names with claims.

None of the witnesses can claim to have 100% seen the plane impact the pentagon, as the impact point cold not be seen. Anyone who says they did added that from assumption, witnesses do that all the time. The fly off could have easily been missed because of the fireball, and smoke, and simply shock from seeing such a thing. The mind races in those situations, and you are never going to clearly see what happened.

So, you claim all witnesses and physical evidence that indicate a plane hit the Pentagon are faked and only the crack CIT team knows the truth. The "duck and cover" theory that the explosion covered the fly away applies even to those some distance from the Pentagon because, without exception, everybody would be shocked and miss the flyaway, including all the military personnel and ex-military personnel in the area for several miles around.

Did all of the NOC witnesses remained unaffected and see the fly away or did any see an impact? Were the statements about seeing an impact disregarded from such reliable witnesses? Was the Citgo tape really edited to prevent the NOC route from being seen?
I still haven't concluded if Ranke is trying to con people for some reason or is just a bonehead. I'm leaning toward bonehead trying to con people.

Check the link that you have in your signature frustratingfraud.blogspot.com... and see what they conclude about that highly professional CIT team.

Originally posted by Saltarello
Are you sure? Id say the perspective at ground level is not that good but meh, as usual, you show that your search for "truth" is a lie... So from ground level in the monument area you can see through trees and all to see the pentagon building/complex. Man you yanks are advanced, never would have imagined it...

So what are you saying, that if the plane really did fly over the Pentagon that noone wouldn't have seen it because of the trees? Are you seriously suggesting that noone in D.C. saw the plane fly over because the plane instead flew 90 degrees straight down into the water and submerged itself like one of those flying submarines from "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea"?

You truthers are starting to grasp at pretty gigantic straws, lately.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by ANOK

 

Can you prove this claim about the erected mounds of earth? Or is it one of those ones where you look at a photo and persuade yourself it means what you want it to?

LOL are you kidding, did you miss the pictures, and link, I provided?

The level of denial is getting ridiculous.

How can those pics be anything but what they are, mounds of dirt erected just before 911, and removed right after it was cleaned up? What am I, or the author of the website, mistaking them for? Do you have any idea why they would erect dirt mounds? How can you not see the obvious convenience of it all?

You need to do better than try to brush it off as a mistake in observation.

Originally posted by pteridine
So, you claim all witnesses and physical evidence that indicate a plane hit the Pentagon are faked and only the crack CIT team knows the truth.

Physical evidence exists in physical form. You have "photographic evidence" or objects that no longer exist nor do you have proof a 757 made contact with any of them.

As for witnesses. CIT never asserted they were faked. Most they determined merely deduced or assumed an impact from a distance and others deduced it up close and some are suspicious, dubious and likely lying. It's all on their forums and elsewhere. They have taken witnesses head on, obtained their POVs and reconstructed their accounts. You, on the other hand keep repeating what you've read online. You've never spoke with a witness. You cant produced any corroborating details from any witness about the alleged impact in order to make it make sense.

The "duck and cover" theory that the explosion covered the fly away applies even to those some distance from the Pentagon because, without exception, everybody would be shocked and miss the flyaway, including all the military personnel and ex-military personnel in the area for several miles around.

No one said that everyone missed it. Clearly as I showed you earlier and you promptly ignored, people saw the flyover. Some didn't. Many on the alleged impact side ducked, ran for cover, flinched and this helped with the cover-up of the flyover. Your denial or disbelief is not counter evidence.

Did all of the NOC witnesses remained unaffected and see the fly away or did any see an impact?

Clearly they were fooled into deducing that that they saw an impact. A north side plane cant impact. Do you not understand this or are you remaining purposefully obtuse in order to distract readers?

Were the statements about seeing an impact disregarded from such reliable witnesses?

Well their alleged impact details werent corroborated in anyway and certainly can't be correct since we know the plane was on the north side of the Citgo. What makes them reliable? Because you read a blurb online?

Was the Citgo tape really edited to prevent the NOC route from being seen?

Yup.

I still haven't concluded if Ranke is trying to con people for some reason or is just a bonehead. I'm leaning toward bonehead trying to con people.

Another insult to a member. Can't believe this is allowed. Well clearly, you can't effectively debunk or refute anything from Ranke so i guess ad hominem is the next best thing.

Check the link that you have in your signature frustratingfraud.blogspot.com... and see what they conclude about that highly professional CIT team.

Yes, you should also check out the constant debunks on their forum related to this now defunct debunker. Another classic is his debate with CIT. Its another case of death by debate haha.
thepentacon.com...

Originally posted by ANOK
For some unexplained reason dirt mounds were erected at strategic points around the pentagon, making it almost impossible to see the impact point, coincidentally, from anywhere but where Llodys cab, and the downed light poles was staged. That was set up to clear the bridge of witnesses imo.

The largest mound hid the view of the impact point from the Citgo station. Which means the CIT witnesses could not have seen the actual impact as OSers suggest.

How come you OSers never mention this, or talk about it? Who erected those mounds, and what the hell for?
They were erected just before 911, and removed right after it was all cleaned up.

I don't know why you truthers always take umbrage when I point out you're getting all this foolishness off those damned fool conspiracy web sites, as I can see right away you're getting THIS foolishness from Steven Warren's conspiracy blog.

Your photos have been debunked as being fakes years ago. There were no dirt piles that close to the Pentagon. Here's a photo of the Pentagon shortly after the attack taken from the same distance away as the spot where your photos were supposedly taken, and you can see how close it was taken because the helicopter landing pad is right there on the lawn.. There's only a highway chock full of stopped cars. I don't see any dirt pile. Do you?



Here's one taken a little further away still. Same highway, same tree, same stopped cars. Still no dirt pile.




These photos were taken by a guy names Steve Riskus, about a minute after the attack, and yes, he was physically there and yes, he physically saw the plane hit the Pentagon. He even lists his email address so he's not not hard to get hold of if you wanted more information from him. When the plane hit everyone on the highway immediately stopped and began gawking so claiming "noone saw what hit the Pentagon" isn't even a remotely believable lie.

Steve Riskus' photo gallery

...so when will it finally dawn on you that you've been raped by those damned fool conspiracy web sites, and raped badly?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
These photos were taken by a guy names Steve Riskus, about a minute after the attack, and yes, he was physically there and yes, he physically saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

... And yes, he also placed the plane on the NoC flight path...and yes, this means he couldn't have and didn't see the plane impact the pentagon...
z3.invisionfree.com...

Originally posted by WetBlanky
... And yes, he also placed the plane on the NoC flight path...and yes, this means he couldn't have and didn't see the plane impact the pentagon...

Ah yes, the "secret government agent" excuse again. Why an I not surprised?

reply to post by WetBlanky


Stay in la la land if you choose to do so. CIT is a joke.