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

reply to post by snowcrash911


Wow, Snowcrash.

Are you linking to Jeff Hill's Pentagon video as a "debunk" to the NOC evidence?
Go educate yourself here..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Did Jeff Hill uncover more NOC witnesses?

A HA A HA

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.

Has anybody verified Warren Stutt's "data"?

You know, the "data" that GLs have pinned their colours to while rejecting the NTSB released official data that shows PA too high to hit the poles or the building?

Warren Stutt's "data" that still doesn't add up to "impact"?

Originally posted by Varemia

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.

The aircraft can't hit the generator from NOC.
The physical damage can't be caused from NOC.
Lagasse couldn't physically see the official path.
He's corroborated over and over and over..

You did read my post on the witnesses who's POVs rule out being physically able to see or describe the official path? Morin? Middleton?

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by ATH911

 

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

Really? Weren't the last seconds "missing" according to GLs?
If they were "found", have you verified it yourself?

Didn't Warren Stutt's data show the PA to be still too high to hit the poles or building?

Shouldn't we demand an explanation from the authorities?

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by ANOK

 

If Sgt Lagasse couldn't remember where he was at the Citgo on 9/11 ( not surprising years after the event ) why should we take as gospel his memory of the flightpath ?

You seem to be suggesting he was lying about seeing the plane impact the Pentagon or at least flat wrong. Quite a thing to be wrong about !

So what is left of him as a witness ?

Jebus...

He was what, 20 feet away from the correct pump. Firing squad?

His fellow officer Brooks corroborated him from behind the station.

As do all confirmed witnesses within the area!

There are no confirmed witnesses to the official flightpath!

In what parallel universe do all witnesses in a position to see it, describe the "wrong" flightpath and nobody sees the "correct" one??

Tinfoil hat in the post Alfie.

Here's an interesting image from the day after 9/11..




The downed lightples and the bridge are waay to the right of that image.

Why do you suppose those FBI types are searching the NOC area for evidence? Maybe they were pointed in that direction for "some reason". Hmm?

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by ProudBird

 

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

Lagasse specifically states he saw the plane crash, then went over there and saw plane debris inside the building, including an airplane engine.

Are YOU calling him a damn liar, "ATH911"? Did Lagasse "invent" the plane engine he saw inside the building? Oh yeah, but then everything is fake in your twisted universe right? Well if everything is fake, so is flyover. QED.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
There are no confirmed witnesses to the official flightpath!

There are no confirmed witnesses to the "official NoC path" either.

This is your little trick. The flight path descriptions of the official flight path must be exact, while the "NoC flight path" descriptions may vary by about a mile, average them out, and all is well.

Isn't that right, TPE? Didn't Craig Ranke say "witnesses are not computers"?

Witnesses can't judge the flight path of objects flying at ~483 knots in 3D space in relation to the ground, especially not if, as Lagasse describes, they have only about one second to do so. They will mistake left from right, up from down, speed, heading, color, size, everything. You're welcome to show me otherwise with citations from the peer reviewed literature on witness testimony. Connecting an object to another object, as in a collision, is much easier. Nevertheless, forensic experts prefer to rely on physical evidence for a reason.

All but two of CIT's "NoC" witnesses were positioned at or to the north of the Citgo gas station.

The witness pool was carefully cleansed from any "dissent". There is no unanimity, CIT presents a biased selection... deliberately. Last but not least, there are NO flyover witnesses. Roberts is a SoC witness, Dihle is hearsay confirming the presence of the C-130, and De La Cerda/Doseborough... state nothing of the sort. Nothing even remotely close.

All witnesses say the plane crashed, and some of them followed the plane all the way into the Pentagon. CIT can no longer contact the wide majority of the witnesses they conned, because the witnesses want nothing to do with CIT any longer.

Flyover is a hideous farce.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Here's an interesting image from the day after 9/11..

The downed lightples and the bridge are waay to the right of that image.

Why do you suppose those FBI types are searching the NOC area for evidence? Maybe they were pointed in that direction for "some reason". Hmm?

They screened the entire area. Standard procedure. Why don't you show the pictures of FBI agents picking up plane pieces? Oh, you don't like those pictures? Not keen on sharing, are you? Peter Piper planted plane parts and poles at the Pentagon?

Oh and lastly, why would there be anything to pick up if the plane hit nothing? Could you answer that question for me please? Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by Alfie1
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..

Exactly. P4T's "experts" didn't discover the last seconds of the FDR data because they are incompetent.

I could reproduce Warren's work if I wanted to, and maybe I will.

In any case, Warren's work, from one programmer to another, is outstanding.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by ANOK

 

If Sgt Lagasse couldn't remember where he was at the Citgo on 9/11 ( not surprising years after the event ) why should we take as gospel his memory of the flightpath ?

You seem to be suggesting he was lying about seeing the plane impact the Pentagon or at least flat wrong. Quite a thing to be wrong about !

So what is left of him as a witness ?

Jebus...

He was what, 20 feet away from the correct pump. Firing squad?

His fellow officer Brooks corroborated him from behind the station.

As do all confirmed witnesses within the area!

There are no confirmed witnesses to the official flightpath!

In what parallel universe do all witnesses in a position to see it, describe the "wrong" flightpath and nobody sees the "correct" one??

Tinfoil hat in the post Alfie.

In 2003, years before he spoke to CIT, Sgt Lagasse had this exchange with Dick Eastman :-

www.911-strike.com...

You will see that the Sgt went into detail about the plane impact, lightpoles struck, wreckage he saw etc. Was he lying about all that ? If he was, why should anyone give him the time of day over his perception of the flightpath ?

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by ProudBird

 

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

Lagasse specifically states he saw the plane crash, then went over there and saw plane debris inside the building, including an airplane engine.

Are YOU calling him a damn liar, "ATH911"? Did Lagasse "invent" the plane engine he saw inside the building? Oh yeah, but then everything is fake in your twisted universe right? Well if everything is fake, so is flyover. QED.

edit on 11-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)

The Pentagon was under "renovation" scheduled for completion the week of 9/11. There was a lot of unoccupied areas. Do you concede that an engine could have been planted there for Lagasse or others to find, so as far as they knew they were finding plane debris from a crash? Would you agree that operation northwoods gives us precedence that shows that this is something the military/intelligence groups are capable of faking?

c. At precisely the same time that the aircraft was presumably shot down a submarine or small surface craft would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc., at approximately 15 to 20 miles off the Cuban coast and depart. The pilots returning to Homestead would have a true story as far as they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched and parts of aircraft found.

Honestly, is your job to just stall people out and waste their time? Is it to just keep them going in circles? Is your job to deceive people by getting them to focus on the wrong area?

Which side of the gas station did Lagasse see the plane on? North side. What does that mean, Snowcrash911? Here, let me help you.

You can't endorse North of Citgo, and then try to say but you don't believe in the flyover, because if the plane really was NoC, then it could not have caused the physical damage seen.

~Pat Curley, CIT detractor, official story supporter, and anti-9/11 truth "skeptic".
Source: screwloosechange.blogspot.com...

If the plane actually flew to the north side of the gas station, this proves an inside job.

~"Michiel deBoer" aka Snowcrash911
Source: www.911oz.com...

So why do you cherry pick only to try and support an impact?

Again, which side of the gas station did Lagasse see the plane on? Why, if you are supposed to be a 911 truther and if the north side flight path proves an inside job, would you fight so hard to discredit Lagasse?

Keep in mind, it's discrediting while using certain parts of his beliefs to support an impact. He saw the plane on the north side of the gas station, he stood by it, he would testify to it. Your fight to suppress it is revealing your true identity and intentions.

You are so transparent.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


You like to toss around "technical" terms, acronyms like "PA"?

You know, the "data" that GLs have pinned their colours to while rejecting the NTSB released official data that shows PA too high to hit the poles or the building?

Warren Stutt's "data" that still doesn't add up to "impact"?

I presume you mean "Pressure Altitude" there, with the "PA".....have you not been introduced to "RA" yet? (Radio Altitude, or sometimes called "Radar Altitude").

The final reading, from Warren Stutt, was ~4 feet on the RA.

I'd suggest, rather than continuing to believe every nonsense claim by "CIT" and the "P4T" (who, by the way, I odn't think even like each other any more), perhaps it would be useful to actually, physically travel to the Pentagon one day. You need to see the area with your own eyes, rather than relying on all of this baloney that has bee fed to you.

The Metro DC area has a good public transportation system, you can get to the Pentagon easily via bus or rail.

You can then stroll the grounds, and the immediate vicinity. (Public access areas, of course).

Originally posted by snowcrash911


There are no confirmed witnesses to the "official NoC path" either.

This is your little trick. The flight path descriptions of the official flight path must be exact, while the "NoC flight path" descriptions may vary by about a mile, average them out, and all is well.

They don't vary and they certainly don't vary by "about a mile". They are all on the north side of the Citgo gas station or on the north side of Columbia Pike, over the Annex, headed to the north side of the gas station.

There was no south of Citgo path. But if there were, yes it would have to be exact. It has to allow the plane to hit the 5 light poles, approach low and level over the grass, hit the fence and gen set trailer with it's right engine, the retaining wall for the vent structure while somehow turning invisible and flying through giant communication cable spools.

Isn't that right, TPE? Didn't Craig Ranke say "witnesses are not computers"?

That's right. They are not computers. But all they had to do was place it on the north side of the Citgo gas station or on the north side of Columbia Pike, over the Annex, headed to the north side of the gas station. That's all they had to do to stay in the line of corroboration.

Witnesses can't judge the flight path of objects flying at ~483 knots in 3D space in relation to the ground, especially not if, as Lagasse describes, they have only about one second to do so. They will mistake left from right, up from down, speed, heading, color, size, everything. You're welcome to show me otherwise with citations from the peer reviewed literature on witness testimony. Connecting an object to another object, as in a collision, is much easier.

Oh it is? You base this on what? Even when witnesses were running and ducking? Even when they said all they could see was a big fireball?

Two witnesses were on the Citgo property. They place it on the north side of the gas station.
One witness is behind the Citgo property at FOB parking lot. That person places it on the north side of the gas station.
One witness is in front of the Citgo property. That person places the plane on the north side of the gas station.
One witness was on the East side of rt 27. They place the plane on the north side of the gas station.
Two witnesses were on rt 27, one traveling south and one traveling north, and they place the plane on the north side of the gas station path.
Four witnesses were at the ANC maintenance area and place the plane not only over the navy Annex, but headed right at them and over them as they ran under it. Most importantly they place the plane in a right hand bank which is required to turn toward the "impact" area and is NOT in the official flight path.
One witness on the north side of the annex and he could feel the heat of the jet and witnessed it bank, on the north side of the gas station.

Nevertheless, forensic experts prefer to rely on physical evidence for a reason.

Really? You are a forensic expert? Can you show me the forensic experts who proved a 757 made contact with the light poles? The fence and gen set trailer? Can you show me the forensic expert who explains how a 757 flew through communication cable spools. In fact, doesn't physical evidence exist in physical form? Where is the physical evidence Snowcrash911? You have photographs. These photographs represent staged pieces of evidence since we know the plane was on he north side of the gas station.

All but two of CIT's "NoC" witnesses were positioned at or to the north of the Citgo gas station.

And what about the one directly behind the Citgo? The one directly in front? What about the ones directly across the street from it, who not only saw it come over the Navy Annex but saw it bank to the right before it flew right at and over them as they ran under it? All of which only supports the NoC path of course.

The witness pool was carefully cleansed from any "dissent". There is no unanimity, CIT presents a biased selection... deliberately.

They are unanimous, please stop lying. CIT did what anyone would do. Re-interview published witnesses and find new ones along the final seconds of the flight path and in that basin next to the last building before the alleged impact zone. They interviewed much more than the 13 witnesses in NSA. They logically focused on people closest to the Pentagon on the alleged impact side. They happened to focus on people who were standing, not driving their cars. They got witnesses from every side of the Citgo including leading up to it.

Let's try this differently. If you read Lagasse's e-mail and learned he was on the starboard side of the plane and you knew this, if true, would destroy the official story. Would you find more witnesses to determine if this was true and if you did, where would be the most logical places to look?

This bottom line for all of this verbal diarrhea is that CIT and their supporters can and likely will spend the rest of their lives spreading this garbage all over conspiracy sites on the Internet and fringe radio stations controlled by truthers or the like. When it comes down to the real world/reality, they have in the past and will continue to be simply conspiracy theorists of the dumbest kind.

They've already encountered this with the Orange County, CA paper, the April Gallop lawsuit, and their "Operation Accountability" following their "blockbuster" National Security Alert... All were a total failure and made them a laughing stock among the rational world. They won't ever take this into a Courtroom because that would expose the frivolity and outright stupidity of their charade. I don't believe William Veal will handle it for them! Even if it makes it to an actual Court Case (likely never will), it will only take a few witnesses to the aftermath and cleanup at the Pentagon to get their hogwash thrown out. There are photos not available on the Internet, in addition to dozens and dozens of people who help clean up the mess inside and outside the building. Any Judge would dismiss their case in a heart beat very likely with prejudice to prevent a re occurrence of the April Gallop nonsense.

It is mostly non-productive to bicker with them (there is no legitimate debate) as they will continue to spew the garbage, post their photos and twist and spin their tripe no matter how many times they are soundly debunked and defeated as they already have been numerous times... All bickering with them does is allow them to continue their stupid charade and give them the attention they crave....

The witness pool was carefully cleansed from any "dissent". There is no unanimity, CIT presents a biased selection... deliberately.

They were all unanimous. Stop lying. They all placed the plane on the north side of the gas station or headed directly to it. There is nothing biased. They learned of the north side of the gas station flight path from Dick Eastman's e-mail with Lagasse. They confirmed it with other witnesses in the area. It was corroborated over and over.

Last but not least, there are NO flyover witnesses.

Yes there are and it is confirmed by witnesses who place the plane on the north side of the gas station.

Roberts is a SoC witness,

Really? He changed his story when you spoke with him? When did you speak with him? Because in the interviews I heard, he is clearly describing himself being at east loading dock seeing a commercial airliner flying around the parking lot, "just above the light poles", at 50-100 ft alt, headed east toward dc from the side of the pentagon where had believed he impact taken place, looking like a pilot that had missed his landing zone target and was coming back around. That was the flyover plane.

Dihle is hearsay confirming the presence of the C-130,

Don't you feel bad about lying and spreading disinformation? Is a c-130 a jet? The context of what he is talking about is clearly related to the attack jet and the alleged impact. Not a c-130 coming on the scene 3 minutes later at over a 1000 ft altitude. Here is the quote again, so you can't lie to people anymore...


"Some people were yelling that a bomb hit the Pentagon and that a jet kept on going."


All you are doing is confirming CIT's belief and prediction that the c-130 was cover for confusion and that there would be anonymous online personalities that would use the c-130 to try and explain away witnesses to a flyaway/over.

and De La Cerda/Doseborough... state nothing of the sort. Nothing even remotely close.

De La Cerda clearly thought the plane hit on the other side. That is indicative of a flyover. Please say "minds eye", so I can pull out her CMH quote.

And it is Roseborough with an R and he clearly describes a plane over him while he is in south parking, then seeing an explosion rise over the pentagon. He struggled to understand what happened which is what one would expect of a flyover witness. He refused to discuss the event with Craig and clammed up only when discussion turned to the plane he saw.

All witnesses say the plane crashed,

No, some witnesses said "the jet kept on going". Some witnesses saw it pull or "pivot" up into an ascent over the highway, then saw a huge fireball. One witness thought it hit on the other side. Dave Statter stated the witnesses he spoke with said the plane "went to the side of the building and not directly in" and the pilot "tried to avert the building".

The key witnesses in key positions to tell place the plane on the north side of the gas station, which means the plane didn't crash.

And again, the plane has to do something very specific in order to hit the pentagon and due to the decline in topography, obstacles, 757 limitations and last reported altitude even the official path is impossible and was not witnessed or described by ANY witnesses, alleged or genuine.

and some of them followed the plane all the way into the Pentagon.

Really? Which ones. Please list them. Then explain the details they saw, then corroborate those details, then show us they are consistent with the decline in topography, obstacles, 757 limitations and last reported altitude.

CIT can no longer contact the wide majority of the witnesses they conned, because the witnesses want nothing to do with CIT any longer.

Really? Proof? Proof that doesn't involve Jeff Hill sabotaging CIT by calling witnesses and leading them?

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by Alfie1

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.

Really? Can you show me proof of his credentials? Can you show me where he put a lot of time into contacting the NTSB and L3 Communications about this "bug" only he can find? Can you show me where they concur? Can you show me their revised animation using this alleged missing 4 seconds?

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..

No he was welcome until he started being evasive, deceptive, and was withholding the files he claims he decoded. He was welcome until he refused to contact the NTSB and L3 communications. There is no theory and PFT doesn't deal with theory. But you know that of course. By the way, you do know Stutt conceded the plane was still to high right?

Exactly. P4T's "experts" didn't discover the last seconds of the FDR data because they are incompetent.

Haha oh really? Is the NTSB "incompetent" too? They didn't seem to find the alleged "missing 4 seconds" only "Warren Stutt" could find. L3 communications hasn't found a bug either. Can you show me where "Stutt" contacted the NTSB or L3 about this? PFT did not find these "missing" 4 seconds because they didn't and don't exist.

I could reproduce Warren's work if I wanted to, and maybe I will.

Oh of course you could and of course, maybe, you will. Are you also going to contact the NTSB and L3 and let them know?

In any case, Warren's work, from one programmer to another, is outstanding.

Oh of course, you'd say that. So you are a programmer? What else can we know about you? If his work is so outstanding, when are you contacting the NTSB AND L3?

Duplicate post

reply to post by Reheat


And yet, here you are, fighting to convince everyone still.

reply to post by WetBlanky


Will you let me know the names of the witnesses who said " the jet kept on going " and point me in the direction of their statements please ?