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

Originally posted by ATH911
snowcrash?

ATH911?

You obviously don't consider yourself a reasonable person, snowcrash911.

Like I said... It's good William Lagasse didn't "bet his life" on which pump he was at, because the entire interview was conducted at the wrong pump.

What does that have to do with where he saw the plane? He sure didn't think that had anything to do with where he saw the plane. Are now insinuating that because he moved to the forward pump so he can give a quick interview, not trying to remember or replicate his exact moves, that this somehow affects where he saw the plane in relation to the gas station but not when it comes to the alleged impact?

Do you agree that he started to realize ON HIS OWN where he was actually parked on 9/11 when asked about it during the interview.

Lagasse was visibly happy to be able to share his experience with a few guys he thought had a genuine intention to represent his full account.

It was only one guy at the time of the interview. Seems you don't have your facts straight again. And they did represent his full account, including the part where he believed the plane hit. Again, another lie on your part. He even stated that they represented his account fairly. At this point, there 0 verifiable evidence he is mad at them.

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by ATH911
So he was parked at the pump on the south side facing south?

No

So how could he be so wrong saying he saw the plane NoC?

And how coincidentally can it get that about a dozen other supported Lagasse's NoC flightpath testimony?

but his recollection of his parking spot was erroneous.

Erroneous? You make it sound like he was on the opposite side of the building viewing the opposite side of the sky! lol

Class act ignoring the rest of my post, ATH911.

Funny, you ignored my "was he on the south side" question, but what did it have to do with the flight path?

So did Lagasse not see plane parts inside the Pentagon with his own eyes? Did he not say the plane went crashed into the Pentagon with a "yaw", ATH911? Why must you ignore William Lagasse's crash testimony?

Well I was only concerned with the alleged flightpath. Wouldn't you agree it proves a conspiracy if it was NoC?

Originally posted by WetBlanky
Ok I reported you.

And I already reported you. From the "Terms and Conditions of Use":

16a.) Identity Spoofing: You will not impersonate any person or entity, forge headers or otherwise manipulate identifiers in order to disguise the origin of any posting. Doing so will result in removal of your Post(s) and immediate termination of your account.

I believe this relates to pretending to be someone else than you really are.

Originally posted by WetBlanky
So if you were wrong about CIT, what makes your judgement [sic] any better now? Besides, didn't you think they were on to something because of the witnesses and not because of CIT?

Progressing insight.

Originally posted by WetBlanky
Or did you just feign support, so you could later say you looked at it all and CIT is wrong and you don't need to debate them.

Progressing insight.

Originally posted by WetBlanky
Loathe them? All of them? You spoke with them all? Come now, snowcrash911. You know that is not true.

Which one of the witnesses you spoke to can you still contact today? The list will be short. And it's not because they're "scared of the implications of flyover", it's because they dislike you.

Originally posted by WetBlanky
A majority of the witnesses you listed are north side witnesses, some are alleged witnesses who have lost their credibility and none support a south of citgo low and level impact. We can dissect them one by one if you want.

Careful now... Slandering people is against the Terms and Conditions of Use

15a) Offensive Content: You will not Post forum posts, private messages, PODcasts, blog entries, videos, images, and other supported content, links to images or use avatars and/or signatures that are unlawful, harassing, libelous, privacy invading, abusive, threatening, harmful, hateful, vulgar, obscene, and/or disruptive. You will not use text, images, avatars or link to images or domains that contain gore, mutilation, pornography or illegal content. Doing so will result in removal of your Post(s) and immediate termination of your account.

CIT was specifically discussed with the moderators. The end result of the discussion was that you are allowed to discuss the credibility of witnesses you interviewed provided you make a very good case. I think it's interesting that CIT was called out on this matter: I agree that the slander and defamation of, for example, Lloyd England, who you label "the first known accomplice" is way over the line. Go ahead and see how far this gets you.

Originally posted by WetBlanky
How many of those witnesses Jeff Hill spoke with described any details of the impact that are corroborated or even consistent with the official flight path.

If the plane hit the building, as the witnesses say it did, then it flew South of the CITGO gas station. That's more than enough. BTW, how are your flight path drawings coming along? You may have noticed that a few are missing from "National Security Alert":

Penny Elgas is not featured in NSA, and CIT have no drawing of her flight path.

Where's Keith Wheelhouse's drawing in NSA?

Terry Morin's?

Sean Boger's?

Madeleine Zakhem's?

Steve Storti's?

Lincoln Liebner's? (No, an animated GIF doesn't cut it)

Penny Elgas' drawing?

Lloyd England's drawing?

Mike Walter's drawing?

Alan Walllace's drawing?

Albert Hemphill's drawing?

Roosevelt Roberts' drawing?

Father McGraw's drawing?

Where are they? Where are their drawings?

Originally posted by WetBlanky
Second, do you agree with this statement from known CIT detractor Boone 870 (who was cited by Miles Kara)

No, I don't, and neither does William Lagasse.

Originally posted by WetBlanky
And as has been pointed out online before, if you are a 9/11 truther, how come you are so vicious when it comes to attacking witnesses who stand by what they saw and said they would testify to it after being unaware and then made aware of the implications? The implications being the damage was staged and 9/11 is an inside job.

If you feel they are both excellent researchers and onto something, why won't you let the witnesses they interviewed have their day in court?

The officers said they would testify to it. Who are YOU to say that they are wrong and shouldn't be on the stand, and if you are for 9/11 truth why would say that?

They would testify to the plane hitting the building in a nanosecond... but your court case would be declared frivolous from the get-go... like April Gallop's court case.

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by WetBlanky
Ok I reported you.

And I already reported you. From the "Terms and Conditions of Use":

Good luck with that and your paranoia.

I believe this relates to pretending to be someone else than you really are.

That's rich. There is so much I can say about that comment.

So, I am pretending to be "WetBlanky"? "WetBlanky" is someone?

I think a lot of people are still waiting to know who "Michiel deBoer" is.

Originally posted by WetBlanky
Loathe them? All of them? You spoke with them all? Come now, snowcrash911. You know that is not true.

Which one of the witnesses you spoke to can you still contact today? The list will be short. And it's not because they're "scared of the implications of flyover", it's because they dislike you.

Apparently the moderators haven't gotten involved yet because you are still blathering on about me being the CIT boogeyman.

Ok snowcrash911, whatever you say...because, well, it's the Internet and you can.

You've got nothing but a couple of dubious witnesses who have issues with CIT, the rest is your sad innuendo. It's sad, because it's one of the few tools you have.

Careful now... Slandering people is against the

No one is being slandered. More of your empty scare tactics. Do you really want to test the credibility of these alleged witnesses? Their accounts have helped expose themselves.

CIT was specifically discussed with the moderators. The end result of the discussion was that you are allowed to discuss the credibility of witnesses you interviewed provided you make a very good case. I think it's interesting that CIT was called out on this matter: I agree that the slander and defamation of, for example, Lloyd England, who you label "the first known accomplice" is way over the line. Go ahead and see how far this gets you.

Well I am not CIT, but I will make a good case. I don't see any slander or defamation of Lloyde England. He is caught in a pickle. The north side flight path witnesses implicate him and he made very revealing comments that pretty much sum up his involvement. Lloyde doesn't seem very concerned about suing CIT, although there was talk of getting him to sue...maybe you can start that campaign again?

Originally posted by WetBlanky
How many of those witnesses Jeff Hill spoke with described any details of the impact that are corroborated or even consistent with the official flight path.

If the plane hit the building, as the witnesses say it did, then it flew South of the CITGO gas station. That's more than enough.

Um, no that's not enough. The plane has to do something very specific in order to cause all that damage AND match the data and surveillance video. Details of the alleged "impact" must be corroborated and consistent with the plane's capabilities & the topography and obstacles.

Not one witness was ever asked about which side of the gas station the plane was on, until your beloved "impact"-when-it's-convenient-forgetful-mistaken-when-it's-the-north-side-witness, William Lagasse, let it slip that he was on the starboard side and then CIT was able to corroborate this unknown detail-the NoC flight path.

The fireball was 4-5 times the height of the pentagon, covering 1/4 to 2/3 of the west face. It came so far out people felt the heat. Darius Prather said people were running away not looking to see if the plane was going to hit "or not going to hit". Erik Dihle had witnessed, some people thought the plane and others were "yelling a bomb had hit the Pentagon and the jet kept on going". So it is obvious that some people saw the flyover and others were fooled into believing the plane hit, likely because of the events in NYC.

Where are they? Where are their drawings?

Now you know you are being deceptive. Some of those witnesses were interviewed after NSA came out. Second, a large group were interviewed on the phone presumably becsuse try already got confirmation ofthe north path and only felt they needed a verbal description. I assume part of that is due to the costs of traveling. Keith wheelhouse obviously wasn't being truthfully accurate, he couldn't even see the Citgo! His description of the C-130 encounter is also erroneous. He likely saw the drawings of the official path after the fact and drew it from memory.

They would testify to the plane hitting the building in a nanosecond... but your court case would be declared frivolous from the get-go... like April Gallop's court

Once again, they would be there BECAUSE OF the NoC flight path. But I guess you can dream, can't you?

So, you don't want to see them testify about the north side path?

Originally posted by WetBlanky
Second, do you agree with this statement from known CIT detractor Boone 870 (who was cited by Miles Kara)

No, I don't, and neither does William Lagasse.

So let me get this straight. You believe William Lagasse is accurate when he says "the plane hit the building where it met the ground" but he is inaccurate when it comes to seeing the plane on the north side of the Citgo? Even though the official story, the security video, integrated consultants, purdue university and he ASCE report place it low and level across the lawn and into the building?

Are you that sloppy that you don't think people see you are trying to have it both ways?

William Lagasse describes a north side flight path in a descent and a shallow bank, of course he is going to deduce that it hit the building where it met the ground and not low and level over the lawn, skimming into the first floor as the official story and the shady surveillance videos leads us to believe.

Here is the surveillance video frames of the grainy object-sorry, but it is low and level over the lawn:

i40.photobucket.com...
i40.photobucket.com...
i14.photobucket.com...

The Integrated Consultants 3-D presentation has it low and level:
i14.photobucket.com...

i183.photobucket.com...

So does Purdue University:
www.freedomfiles.org...

And the ASCE:
thepentacon.com...

psst... Snowcrash911, that is not "hitting the building where it met the ground".

But I think I get it. You want an ambiguous "impact", so long as the word "impact" is used, right? Jeff Hill talks bad about CIT and the flyover and preps the witness, then gets them to say they saw the impact out of anger or indignant groupthink. But he doesn't bother trying to get any details regarding the alleged impact or even the flight path in relation to the Citgo. You went on about the plane hitting on the south side of the Citgo, but then craftily imply Lagasse saw it impact "where the building met the ground" ie NoC impact.

So since you don't believe the official story, low, level skim into the first floor impact, are you saying you believe it hit the building where it met the ground? If so, then I must assume you believe the surveillance video is faked. Is that correct?

I've watched Sgt Lagasse's testimony again and there is only one rational conclusion that can be made about what he had to say: he was correct and the flightpath was NoC, ergo proving the official flightpath was a lie.

His position on the north side of the Citgo describing landmarks NoC where is saw the plane come in was all consistent with a NoC flightpath. Nothing about his behavior or demeanor indicated he was lying (I think the skeptics will agree with me on that). Plus having the other dozen NoC witnesses confirm Lagasse's testimony makes his NoC testimony a slam dunk case.

The Official Pentagon flightpath was a LIE! Conspiracy proven!!!

reply to post by ATH911


No flyover. A plane hit the Pentagon. NOC path moot. Conspiracy debunked.

reply to post by ATH911

The Official Pentagon flightpath was a LIE! Conspiracy proven!!!

Please explain, in detail, how the SSFDR (Solid State Flight Data Recorder) information was "faked" or "altered".

Show specific examples that can be verified. Show how this could ave been done, and also how it could be done "in secret". AND, how it has still not been "revealed", to this day.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by ATH911

 

The Official Pentagon flightpath was a LIE! Conspiracy proven!!!

Please explain, in detail, how the SSFDR (Solid State Flight Data Recorder) information was "faked" or "altered".

Show specific examples that can be verified. Show how this could ave been done, and also how it could be done "in secret". AND, how it has still not been "revealed", to this day.

It is from another flight. An Arlingtonian member of the PFT forum reported that their neighbors along the flight path reported that the week before 9/11 a plane buzzed the neighborhood in the late evening/early morning hours waking them from their sleep.

This would explain how they got the data, why it is was too high to hit the light poles and pentagon, and why there is conveniently the last 4 seconds missing.

reply to post by WetBlanky


What happened to all the witnesses to the flyover? How about all the witnesses that saw the impact?

Goodbye NOC, Goodbye flyover, Goodbye CIT.

reply to post by WetBlanky


Utter fantasy.

It is from another flight. An Arlingtonian member of the PFT forum reported that their neighbors along the flight path reported that the week before 9/11 a plane buzzed the neighborhood in the late evening/early morning hours waking them from their sleep.

I happened to live in Arlington in 2001. This is rubbish, and I would go so far as to say that since it was posted on the "P4T" forum it is most likely concocted by Rob Balsamo, or a minion of his.

This would explain how they got the data, why it is was too high to hit the light poles and pentagon, and why there is conveniently the last 4 seconds missing.

Warren Stutt has successfully decoded the last few seconds. It was NOT "too high to hit the light poles", and in any case, the failed assertions here only convince the feeble who know nothing at all about airplanes and aviation.

Such a flight, if it had existed, would have been witnessed by many, to include the ones working at the National Tower, and in the Washington TRACON. Just to name two facilities, of many.

reply to post by WetBlanky


That won't wash. The FDR recovered from the Pentagon contained details of multiple flights known to have been carried out by the aircraft which flew on 9/11 as AA77; as well as the last fatal flight.

The final reading indicated a radio height of 4 feet accompanied by off the scale deceleration. How did another aircraft duplicate that without crashing into the Pentagon also ?

www.journalof911studies.com...

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by WetBlanky

 

What happened to all the witnesses to the flyover? How about all the witnesses that saw the impact?

Goodbye NOC, Goodbye flyover, Goodbye CIT.

And yet, here you are over and over trying to convince everyone and yourself that there as no flyover.

We've covered the flyover witness issue ad nauseum. If you are not going to concede, then you can continue your role as a troll.

Oh yeah, the mysterious Warren Stutt. The only one on the planet who who found an alleged bug and the only one who was able to decode the last 4 seconds allegedly.

Can you guys/girls show me where he contacted the NTSB and L3 communications about this alleged bug he found and where they concur?

Can you please show me the last 4 seconds in the NTSB animation?

You do know that it still showed the plane too high right?

Why did they source an FAR written for a static system in an aircraft such as a Cessna 172 if their paper is claimed to be "peer-reviewed"?

Warren Stutt has refused to provide the files to anyone proving these other "authentic" flights. He has been asked numerous times. He wont even tell us which flights they are from. He avoids it at all costs.

More from an actual FDR expert:
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Much more here for those interested and not sickened by the repetitive nature of the FDR bullies...
pilotsfor911truth.org...

reply to post by WetBlanky


I think some people put far too much credence in the "P4T".

You know, this is really pretty simple: IF the "P4T" did have such "Earth-shattering evidence", then it wouldn't even be a question at all.

It would be major news, and Rob Balsamo would be a millionaire and a "hero" for "uncovering" it.

Originally posted by WetBlanky

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by WetBlanky

 

What happened to all the witnesses to the flyover? How about all the witnesses that saw the impact?

Goodbye NOC, Goodbye flyover, Goodbye CIT.

And yet, here you are over and over trying to convince everyone and yourself that there as no flyover.

We've covered the flyover witness issue ad nauseum. If you are not going to concede, then you can continue your role as a troll.

Let's face it, there are no flyover witnesses. The poverty of CIT's position on this is that they, like you, quote Erik Dihle in support. This is a man who never claimed to have seen anything but reported what some of his co-workers were yelling in the immediate aftermath of the attack. He said " The first few seconds it was very confusing, we couldn't even tell... some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going... somebody else was yelling no,no,no the jet ran into the building."

So, we have a man who didn't see anything quoting anonymous co-workers for whom there is no evidence they saw anything either. If there was any substance to a flyover surely there must be something better than this ?

Originally posted by WetBlanky
Oh yeah, the mysterious Warren Stutt. The only one on the planet who who found an alleged bug and the only one who was able to decode the last 4 seconds allegedly.

Can you guys/girls show me where he contacted the NTSB and L3 communications about this alleged bug he found and where they concur?

Can you please show me the last 4 seconds in the NTSB animation?

You do know that it still showed the plane too high right?

Why did they source an FAR written for a static system in an aircraft such as a Cessna 172 if their paper is claimed to be "peer-reviewed"?

Warren Stutt has refused to provide the files to anyone proving these other "authentic" flights. He has been asked numerous times. He wont even tell us which flights they are from. He avoids it at all costs.

More from an actual FDR expert:
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Much more here for those interested and not sickened by the repetitive nature of the FDR bullies...
pilotsfor911truth.org...

There is nothing mysterious about Warren Stutt. He has a BSc (hons) degree in computer science and has put a lot of time into decoding AA 77's FDR.

He was welcome and respected at P4t until he started teasing out readings from the FDR which shot the flyover theory to pieces. He is of course now the devil incarnate..

Originally posted by WetBlanky

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by WetBlanky

 

What happened to all the witnesses to the flyover? How about all the witnesses that saw the impact?

Goodbye NOC, Goodbye flyover, Goodbye CIT.

And yet, here you are over and over trying to convince everyone and yourself that there as no flyover.

We've covered the flyover witness issue ad nauseum. If you are not going to concede, then you can continue your role as a troll.

You've repeated much of the CIT dogma but that line of bull doesn't really answer the criticisms. CIT ignores all witnesses that saw the impact, even the ones they cite as NOC witnesses. This is a poor investigative practice but CIT is not the first to be disingenuous. The "flyover" witness was confused at best and given Ranke's interview tactics and penchant for "embellishment", who knows what he really said. CIT also ignores all physical evidence and claims it was all planted with no evidence or witnesses of it being planted. CIT has an agenda and doesn't let reality get in the way of it.

Face it, CIT has lost the battle. The theory was so contrived as to be laughable on its best day and it is long past that now.

Look at all the skeptics who rushed over here after I declared that Sgt. Lagasse's testimony proved a conspiracy!