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

Originally posted by pteridine

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

So if the plane fly NoC, that doesn't prove a conspiracy?

reply to post by ProudBird


Neverminding your logical fallacies, are you calling Sgt. Lagasse a liar?

Originally posted by pteridine

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

Doesn't override the FACT that a dozen witnesses saw a NoC flightpath, which PROVES conspiracy.

Unless you think those dozen witnesses are all part of some hoax (i.e. lying).

Originally posted by Alfie1

Let's face it, there are no flyover witnesses.

Let's face it, there are a dozen NoC flighpath witnesses.

Nothing else is needed.

Conspiracy proved!!!

Originally posted by ProudBird

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

I put credence in the dozen NoC witnesses, because I think even you'd agree none of them were lying and I can't see how all of them could have been so wrong, especially police officer Sgt. Lagasse.

reply to post by ATH911


The same police officer that has been P.O.ed for years about how P4T, Loose Change et al have misrepresented him? That police officer?

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by pteridine

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

Doesn't override the FACT that a dozen witnesses saw a NoC flightpath, which PROVES conspiracy.

Unless you think those dozen witnesses are all part of some hoax (i.e. lying).

There's definitely something odd about the flight path accounts, but that does not prove a flyover. I think that's what people are getting at here.

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by Alfie1

Let's face it, there are no flyover witnesses.

Let's face it, there are a dozen NoC flighpath witnesses.

Nothing else is needed.

Conspiracy proved!!!

What makes a nonsense of CIT's supposed NoC witnesses is that all those who were in a position to see unanimously say the plane hit the Pentagon. The physical damage shows that the flightpath was in fact SoC.

CIT's absurdity is to pretend that witnesses recalling a NoC flightpath are infallible on that, even though their NoC flightpaths differ, but mistaken as to impact.

I would suggest to you that a fleeting impression of the flightpath of a speeding jet at low level would create far less of an indelible impression than an impact with the Pentagon.

No-one has to be called a liar and to pretend that all the NoC witnesses who saw the impact were deluded is just incredible.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by ATH911

 

The same police officer that has been P.O.ed for years about how P4T, Loose Change et al have misrepresented him? That police officer?

Oh, did P4T & Loose Change make is sound like Sgt Lagasse saw a SoC flightpath? Shame of them if so.

Originally posted by Varemia

There's definitely something odd about the flight path accounts, but that does not prove a flyover. I think that's what people are getting at here.

Yes, the skeptics and pseudo truthers are trying to ignore the dozen NoC witnesses because those witnesses are inconvenient to their agenda.

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by Varemia

There's definitely something odd about the flight path accounts, but that does not prove a flyover. I think that's what people are getting at here.

Yes, the skeptics and pseudo truthers are trying to ignore the dozen NoC witnesses because those witnesses are inconvenient to their agenda.

I'm not sure if you are trying to say that the witnesses prove a flyover. I saw the testimonies of the officers, and it has left me scratching my head without an answer. Thing is, the officer at the gas station who witnessed the plane saw it go into the Pentagon. He even remarked about how he thought it was strange the way it "yawed" just before impact. Personally, I thought that would be explainable by impacting the generator, which is shown with its corner smashed off and pushed. No flyover according to that testimony.

Originally posted by Alfie1
The physical damage shows that the flightpath was in fact SoC.

So are the dozen NoC witnesses all lying?

even though their NoC flightpaths differ

Which ones weren't drawn NoC?

No-one has to be called a liar

Police officer Sgt Lagasse was on the north side of the Citgo building, blocked from a south view. He was facing north and pointed out northern landmarks where he said he saw the plane come in NoC. HOW COULD HE HAVE BEEN SO WRONG?!? How is it that a dozen others confirmed his NoC flightpath testimony?!?

and to pretend that all the NoC witnesses who saw the impact were deluded is just incredible.

Well, that's what you skeptics are doing, right?

Originally posted by Varemia

I'm not sure if you are trying to say that the witnesses prove a flyover.

No, the dozen NoC witnesses prove a conspiracy. Why is everyone jumping to a flyover conclusion?

I saw the testimonies of the officers, and it has left me scratching my head without an answer.

I think an answer is simple; conspiracy proven!

reply to post by ATH911


The airplane did NOT fly "North of the Citgo". The Flight Recorder data is conclusive on that.

The "witnesses" accounts were mistaken, and based (as shown multiple times previously) on a matter of their perspective, and errant memories.

Finally, it is a well-established fact that "eyewitness" testimony is constantly subject to interpretive bias and as such, although interesting to add to the total of accounts, some must be taken "with a grain of salt" when considering the VAST tons of other evidence.

This is truly hilarious, on one thread, we have a truther arguing that the Pentagon witnesses did not see the flyover due to the power of suggestion. On this thread, we have a truther arguing that witnesses are infallible....

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by Alfie1
The physical damage shows that the flightpath was in fact SoC.

So are the dozen NoC witnesses all lying?

even though their NoC flightpaths differ

Which ones weren't drawn NoC?

No-one has to be called a liar

Police officer Sgt Lagasse was on the north side of the Citgo building, blocked from a south view. He was facing north and pointed out northern landmarks where he said he saw the plane come in NoC. HOW COULD HE HAVE BEEN SO WRONG?!? How is it that a dozen others confirmed his NoC flightpath testimony?!?

and to pretend that all the NoC witnesses who saw the impact were deluded is just incredible.

Well, that's what you skeptics are doing, right?

edit on 10-12-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)

Just have a look at one of CIT's supposed NoC witnesses a moment; Sean Boger. He was in the Heliport Tower on 9/11 and probably closer to the impact than anyone. He said this " I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building." "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."

Did Mr Boger make all that up about the plane hitting the building ? Was he imagining things when he described hearing the metal going through the building ? His tower was so close to the impact that it was damaged by flying debris but are you saying, like CIT, he was deluded ?

This is truly hilarious, on this thread, we have skeptics arguing that the Pentagon NoC witnesses were right in thinking the Pentagon got hit. And on this same thread, we have skeptics arguing that all of the NoC witnesses are wrong....

Originally posted by ProudBird

The airplane did NOT fly "North of the Citgo".

Police officer Sgt Lagesse and a dozen others disagree with you and I see no way, especially Sgt Lagasse, how they could all be so so so wrong. Unless you think they were all lying.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Did Mr Boger make all that up about the plane hitting the building ?

What's that have to do with the dozen NoC witnesses that prove a conspiracy?

reply to post by ATH911


You need to understand how people's perceptions can vary, based on their....well, perceptions.

This video I have found explains it best: