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

Originally posted by ATH911
Could have fooled me.

This surprises you? You're a truther that belives KILLTOWN! That speaks volumns regarding your gullibility.

I'm still waiting for you skeptics to do that for how UA93 supposedly crashed!

That was answered for you several of your threads. Take your fingers out of your ears and pay attention to the answers you're given.

You know that if a plane hit, BUT flew North of the Citgo, that would prove the OS wrong, right?

Do you know that the plane DID hit? There isn't a soul on eath that saw it fly over.

Originally posted by ANOK
Actually it would have been fairly difficult for any of the witnesses to see the plane impact the pentagon...





stevenwarran.blogspot.com...

I'm not certain where Nutopia is, but it sure ain't anywhere close to the Pentagon. Having worked in the building on many occasions, I can tell you that most of the witnesses could indeed have seen the impact easily and definitely would have seen any sort of flyover/fly-by/fly-away/fly-whatever if it had happened, which nobody *still* has come forward to say they saw.

Sorry, but looking at perspective-loaded and parallaxed photographs does not mean you can say nobody could have seen anything.

Originally posted by trebor451
Sorry, but looking at perspective-loaded and parallaxed photographs does not mean you can say nobody could have seen anything.

Sorry, but I find it hard to believe anyone could see the impact point over those dirt mounds.

Don't you wonder what they were there for?

Bit of a coincidence, no? Along with Lloyd's cab, and light pole, incident that also coincidentally happened at the one spot that you could clearly see the impact point?

I don't care if you have been there, I have also been there.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by trebor451
Sorry, but looking at perspective-loaded and parallaxed photographs does not mean you can say nobody could have seen anything.

Sorry, but I find it hard to believe anyone could see the impact point over those dirt mounds.

Don't you wonder what they were there for?

Bit of a coincidence, no? Along with Lloyd's cab, and light pole, incident that also coincidentally happened at the one spot that you could clearly see the impact point?

I don't care if you have been there, I have also been there.

Can you believe that no one saw any plane leaving the Pentagon?

This is the issue that proponents don't want to address because all the selected interiews about the guestimated course, all the handwaving about timed explosions, planted aircraft parts and all the other contrived details don't mean anything without a huge jetliner flying away.
None did.

What I find difficult to believe is that there are a few people that actually believe the clowns at CIT.

Originally posted by pteridine
Can you believe that no one saw any plane leaving the Pentagon?

So what? I never said they did.

I am just pointing out the obvious. Just because you don't like CIT it doesn't mean everything you say is true.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by pteridine
Can you believe that no one saw any plane leaving the Pentagon?

So what? I never said they did.

I am just pointing out the obvious. Just because you don't like CIT it doesn't mean everything you say is true.

So what? No plane leaving means that their "theory" is immediately refuted. None of the biased interviews and predetermined conclusions matter at all. CIT cinches down their position with the DEW and nuclear demolition proponents for the most contrived theory unsupported by any facts, whatsoever.

What part of CIT's theory do you believe, Anok? Any? All?


.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Six Sigma


Ranke has been a member here at ATS for years.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Does anyone remember Ranke's two O'clock position fiasco, that was hilarious. I don't think he ever corrected that video he probably still thinks he is in the right.

If I remember correctly this was Frustrating Fraud aka Caustic Logic aka Adam Larson's blog which made this argument regarding what Joel Sucherman described?

Didn't the same guy, Frustrating Fraud, acknowledge that Sucherman was describing the NOC flightpath in the same argument? In a blog entitled "JOEL SUCHERMAN – NOC WITNESS?"

“I saw it coming across my windshield but then the passenger side of the vehicle I had had a clear view of the pentagon. I would say The Pentagon is at 2 o’clock from me, in my car. So I’m seeing it come across the windshield and then I’m looking out the passenger side window and that’s where I see the collision with the pentagon. There were no trees at that point in the way at all. I did see it impact.”

Joel Sucherman

Is everybody seeing the pattern here?

Didn't Larson also say..

Because of these facts, his account is not possible in relation to the official path, if literally read. But just out of curiosity, I tried to see what was the best fit for his account. Again I presumed that by ‘the Pentagon’ he meant the impact point, read 2:00 as exact, and considered the view out of the windshield and of the ‘impact point’ being visible out the passenger window. Understanding the result would only be approximate, oddly, these considerations place USA Today editor Sucherman entirely north of the official flight path, so that any plane crossing in front of his windshield to a point visible through his passenger side window, and at 2:00 as he stated, would have to be from over ANC or, with a bit of fudging, at least north of the Citgo.

Frustrating Fraud

He also posted this image..




I think that's even more "hilarious".

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


All they have is a half-baked scenario that immediately falls apart at the question "Where are all of the witnesses who saw the plane leaving the scene?" A plane leaving the scene is the keystone of their argument and they don't have it. No plane flying away means no flyover. They aren't even imaginative enough to claim magic, like DEW, holograms, or nuclear dustfying charges.

reply to post by ProudBird


Proudbird, the alleged FDR data and animation were released under FOIA.

It is officially touted as the official data. The officially released data shows too high to hit the poles or Pentagon. End of story.

How can people who openly claim to support the official story on one hand, outright deny it on the other?

Pilotsfor911Truth used the data released to do their calculations. JREF used Stutt's "data" (and some of their own invented "speculation") which has never been commented on by the NTSB or FBI. And which can't be found anywhere on the official "data".

Until then, the "data" doesn't prove anything other than it's garbage.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

reply to post by GoodOlDave

This means ALL the witnesses, not just those specific one or two that happen to favor the ideology you want to believe. So, yes, you can continuously point to the eyewitnesses who didn't see the impact, but your steadfast refusal to address the eyewitness accounts of those who DID see the impact is what blows your conspiracy hypothesis out of the water.

So it's gone from "it doesn't matter whether there are 9 or 90 witnesses" to "one or two"?

There isn't one who claims to have seen the official path! There are close on 18 to 20 who corroborate North of Columbia Pike/Citgo. Nobody contradicts them.

And who's dodging the witnesses who claim to have seen an alleged impact? The problem is that even the majority of those who claimed to do so also described the NOC path! That's what the problem is.

What I find incredible is that people don't question the ability of someone to actually sit and watch fixed at an incredibly highly adrenalined situation, at the official 540mph and watch an explosion that was felt up to 3km away with and an alleged "200ft diameter" fireball. Without flinching?

They didn't have a "GoogleEarth" view of the Pentagon. Most in the best position were in their cars, probably fixated on the radio reports of what had happened in Manhattan, phoning around or probably wondering wth was the hold up. Most were stuck in bumper to bumper traffic.



I can't deny what these people said that they saw regarding an "impact" but just as equally, you can't deny the overwhelming pattern of the path that they describe.

Figure that little equation out and I'm all ears.

reply to post by trebor451

I'll ask you again - point blank. HUGE event occurs. "Investagangstas!" only interview a handful of the witnesses, then publish an account that is *wildly* divergent from the commonly held theory.

Do I have to repeat myself?

1. They interviewed all known witnesses in and around the Citgo with the best possible view. Five at Arlington National Cemetery, two at the Citgo itself and one standing behing Citgo with a clear view. They also interviewed Sean Boger who was sitting 2 floors up in the heliport with a head on view. One who was in South Parking. One overlooking the Citgo inside the Navy Annex. Two who saw it fly over the North of Columbia Pike (which is just as damning to the OCT as any.)

2. Jeff Hill tried in vain to "debunk" the NOC path and instead uncovered three more NOC witnesses!

3. Erik Larson went to Arlington and reinforced Ed Paik's testimony.

4. You can't name one confirmed SOC witness.

Why don't you give it a try?

Derision is hurled in the "Investagangstas!" direction, and they whine and complain that they are not being taken seriously. Someone points out "There are hundreds of people out there you did not talk to!" "Investagangstas!" complain that "They wouldn't talk to us, so we had to go ahead and publish what WE thought happened anyhow so as not to lose out on the Truther news cycle and to keep donations coming in since our band is not doing that well". Is this right? Ranke and his large friend interviewed who they needed to interview, those whose comments could be gerrymandered and twisted into their own story, decided to accuse any who held contravening view as liars, and that was it.

Seeing as how no witness has been found to contradict their findings, I think they had the right to draw conclusions. Is impact possible from NOC?

The claim that they "twisted" anything is ridiculous as the entire interviews are available. Warts and all.
Why not contact the witnesses interviewed yourself?

I know Darrell Stafford for one repeated his story not so long ago:

www.cnn.com...

He said that "9/11 was quite a day. I saw the plane approach the Pentagon, coming over the Naval Annex. We were kind of mesmerized by it, but we knew we wanted to get out of the way. I and one guy ran toward the plane as it went toward the Pentagon, and we actually went under the wing of it as it passed over. In a matter of seconds, we ducked for cover. I peeked over my shoulder, and moments later, I saw the big old ball of fire and heard the explosion, and it was unreal. It was like somebody turned on a gigantic heat lamp on the back of your neck.

He made three statements in 2001, 2006 and 2010. Is he lying?

And the accusation that they're in it for the money is a non-runner. Has anybody ever had to pay for their presentations?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

All they have is a half-baked scenario that immediately falls apart at the question "Where are all of the witnesses who saw the plane leaving the scene?" A plane leaving the scene is the keystone of their argument and they don't have it. No plane flying away means no flyover. They aren't even imaginative enough to claim magic, like DEW, holograms, or nuclear dustfying charges.

edit on 11/12/2011 by pteridine because: spelling correction

I know it's second hand, but people were heard to have said

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

www.thepentacon.com...

Call me the "conspiwacy feorist" but what are the odds huh?

If you can show me how the aircraft caused the damage from the lightpoles through to C Ring on the witnessed trajectory, I'll pack my bags right now. One witness to the official path would be a start.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

All they have is a half-baked scenario that immediately falls apart at the question "Where are all of the witnesses who saw the plane leaving the scene?" A plane leaving the scene is the keystone of their argument and they don't have it. No plane flying away means no flyover. They aren't even imaginative enough to claim magic, like DEW, holograms, or nuclear dustfying charges.

edit on 11/12/2011 by pteridine because: spelling correction

I know it's second hand, but people were heard to have said

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

www.thepentacon.com...

Call me the "conspiwacy feorist" but what are the odds huh?

If you can show me how the aircraft caused the damage from the lightpoles through to C Ring on the witnessed trajectory, I'll pack my bags right now. One witness to the official path would be a start.

You may theorize all you want. Some people may have been confused. None of the many who saw the event say that they saw a jet leaving. The C130 crew that witnessed the event didn't report anything but an impact. The 'witnessed trajectory' that CIT likes is not what other witnesses saw. CIT's theory is a zombie that is dead many tmes over but keeps awakening to walk again amongst the gullible.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer

Proudbird, the alleged FDR data and animation were released under FOIA.

The animated versions from the American 77 and United 93 FDRs were released in 2002, and NOT from an FOIA.

Remaining info obtained via FOIA was kept out of the public arena because of the Moussaoui trial on-going. After it concluded, the info was free for public scrutiny.

It is officially touted as the official data. The officially released data shows too high to hit the poles or Pentagon. End of story.

That is the lie that is spouted by "PilotsForTruth" (who I see you constantly cite)....this shows that you have taken their garbage as "fact", and refuse to do your own independent methods of verifying their "claims". Their (well, really it's just one guy's warped and terribly wrong opinions and poor math) conclusions and pronouncements are laughable, and show how an ego-maniac with a website and a less-than-competent abilities to examine information has made it his "mission".....a mission to make a fool of himself, for all the World to see.

Just as with the "CIT", and Dylan Avery and Steven Jones and "Dr" Judy Woods and many others who are quite a bit "woo-woo" out there......these fringers have gotten, as yet.....nowhere. Zero traction, because rational and educated and knowledgeable and skilled people can see what they propose for the pile of steaming horse manure it truly is.......

reply to post by pteridine

You may theorize all you want. Some people may have been confused. None of the many who saw the event say that they saw a jet leaving. The C130 crew that witnessed the event didn't report anything but an impact. The 'witnessed trajectory' that CIT likes is not what other witnesses saw. CIT's theory is a zombie that is dead many tmes over but keeps awakening to walk again amongst the gullible.

I just posted somebody's account where he overheard people shouting that a plane dropped a bomb and the plane "flew on". And I'm "theorizing"?

I've already posted what the C130 pilot Steve O'Brien said.



It's not a case of CIT "liking" a certain trajectory, as if there are a wide range to choose from, it's those pesky witnesses that keep cropping up over and over pointing to the NOC trajectory!

Finally (for the umpteenth time), enlighten me as to who saw the official trajectory. Who are these "other witnesses"?

Ignore that question again and I'll take it as a concession that you can't.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


And CIT is still lying. Especially about interviewing all known witnesses. I know this because a friend of mine was at the Pentagon that day and witnessed Flight 77 slamming into the Pentagon. He is, indeed, a "known" witness to the CIT, because he would not talk to them and after that, someone claiming to be part of CIT harassed him and his family enough that he had to change his phone number.

reply to post by ProudBird

That is the lie that is spouted by "PilotsForTruth" (who I see you constantly cite)....this shows that you have taken their garbage as "fact", and refuse to do your own independent methods of verifying their "claims". Their (well, really it's just one guy's warped and terribly wrong opinions and poor math) conclusions and pronouncements are laughable, and show how an ego-maniac with a website and a less-than-competent abilities to examine information has made it his "mission".....a mission to make a fool of himself, for all the World to see.

The FDR data released to the public uses the same data that the animation is based on.



The animation plots the path until one second before the alleged impact at 09:37:44 (real time)







Both were received under FOIA:









Note in the above letter they claim that the only error was that the time showed an "incorrect annotation".

It's part and parcel of the official story. As I said before, if Stutt ever receives a reply from the NTSB as to why a programme designed to translate FDR data couldn't do it, which lead the NTSB themselves releasing an animation with the same datapoints incorporated that I've outlined, I'm all ears.

His and Legge's paper can't find a single pilot to endorse their claims. Does that tell you something?

And what calculations are you talking about exactly? Those based on Stutt's or the official data? Or Mackey's which required 4gs which isn't to be found in the official data or Stutt's?

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
So it's gone from "it doesn't matter whether there are 9 or 90 witnesses" to "one or two"?

There isn't one who claims to have seen the official path! There are close on 18 to 20 who corroborate North of Columbia Pike/Citgo. Nobody contradicts them.

All right, I am offically stumped. I have no idea in any way shape or form what the [censored] you're even arguing about. You fanatically argue one point and then turn around and renounce the point you were bickering about. Then you make statements that have absolutely nothign to do with anything.

If you're bickering that a plane flew over the Pentagon like the CIT people are claiming, then why are you quoting people like Penny Elgas who specifically saw the plane hit the Pentagon? If you're claiming a plane really did hit the Pentagon but via a different flight path than what was published, then what the heck difference does it make? It was still a terrorist attack.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer


There isn't one who claims to have seen the official path! There are close on 18 to 20 who corroborate North of Columbia Pike/Citgo. Nobody contradicts them.

Why do you keep lying like that? Yes, lying, because you are doing this intentionally It has been very clearly pointed out to you that there are proven dozens of people that CIT have not even spoken to. There are also the specific people I pointed out in my other post who contradict these "NOC' claims. Just because you of Ranke or his large cohort or whomever says they are not to be believed means nothing in the real world. Ranke, his large associate and you apparently *also* feel the aircraft flew over the pentagon, yet there are absolutely *zero* witnesses for that. Your track record for speaking reality-based comments is pretty bad at the moment.

And who's dodging the witnesses who claim to have seen an alleged impact? The problem is that even the majority of those who claimed to do so also described the NOC path! That's what the problem is.

Fine then. Given these two events, which even do you think they'd be most likely to screw up their recollection? Where the plane flew in relation to where they stood? Or the aircraft slamming into the side of a building?

What I find incredible is that people don't question the ability of someone to actually sit and watch fixed at an incredibly highly adrenalined situation, at the official 540mph and watch an explosion that was felt up to 3km away with and an alleged "200ft diameter" fireball. Without flinching?

You are projecting your own bias, huge time. How do you know how someone would react in that situation? Just because you might be scared and confused doesn't mean others were. Don Bouchoux was a Navy fighter squadron commanding officer, for God's sale. He spent half his life on board aircraft carriers, strapped into jet aircraft with 20,000 lbs of jet fuel under his seat.. Are you going to tell me - of him - that his version of the events of 9/11 at the Pentagon are going to be suspect because *you* or Ranke or Ranke's large compadre say he *flinched*. Take that to a courtroom.

Pentagon. Most in the best position were in their cars, probably fixated on the radio reports of what had happened in Manhattan, phoning around or probably wondering wth was the hold up. Most were stuck in bumper to bumper traffic.

Projecting again. You have no clue whatsoever what those people were doing and any claims or suggestions of what they *were* doing on your or Ranke's or his large co-worker's part are null and void.

I can't deny what these people said that they saw regarding an "impact" but just as equally, you can't deny the overwhelming pattern of the path that they describe.

Here we go again. How about addressing the overwhelming number of people Ranke and his large partner did NOT interview? Figure THAT number out and get back to us.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

And CIT is still lying. Especially about interviewing all known witnesses. I know this because a friend of mine was at the Pentagon that day and witnessed Flight 77 slamming into the Pentagon. He is, indeed, a "known" witness to the CIT, because he would not talk to them and after that, someone claiming to be part of CIT harassed him and his family enough that he had to change his phone number.

I didn't say that they had interviewed "all known witnesses". I said that they had interviewed all known witnesses with the best view of the flightpath and then some.

If I'm to believe your second hand story, and if "he" wouldn't return their call (if it was indeed CIT), it's hardly their fault that "he" didn't get his testimony out there.

I'm not being confrontational, you're just expecting me to believe an unconfirmed story from an anonymous internet forum post.