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

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


As you see in your post, Steve O'Brien's email says IMPACT and not a flyaway. He is describing the impact and what he thought the reason for it was. He saw the plane flying in, he saw the impact, he didn't see a plane fly away. People on the ground saw the plane fly in, saw the impact or the fireball, and didn't see the plane fly away. This means that the theory of a flyover must be rejected because there was no plane leaving the Pentagon and that all of your arguments are pointless with respect to the CIT theory. I know that you might have a tough time accepting this either because you really want a conspiracy or you are bored in GB and want to see if people respond when you pretend to be extremely dense.

To paraphrase a desperate proponent of CIT: "Finally (for the umpteenth time), enlighten me as to who saw the plane fly away. Ignore that question again and I'll take it as a concession that you can't....and that you concede that the CIT theory has no merit, whatsoever."

reply to post by trebor451


Do me a favour Trebor and name me one person out of these "dozens" who contradicts the NOC witnesses. I've answered your points twice now. Let's get to the nitty gritty of names? You'd need at least a dozen to counter them but one would be a start.

The OCT has the aircraft travelling at 540mph, slamming into the Pentagon and creating a blast felt 3km away and a 200ft diameter fireball. Even the mental imagery of such a scenario is enough to make you at least wince. I don't care if it's Bruce Willis or Rambo, you're gonna duck. At least flinch!

I'm not using that as an excuse to handwave away anybody who claimed to see an "impact", I'm just saying that it's a major factor that needs to be taken into consideration.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

As you see in your post, Steve O'Brien's email says IMPACT and not a flyaway. He is describing the impact and what he thought the reason for it was. He saw the plane flying in, he saw the impact, he didn't see a plane fly away. People on the ground saw the plane fly in, saw the impact or the fireball, and didn't see the plane fly away. This means that the theory of a flyover must be rejected because there was no plane leaving the Pentagon and that all of your arguments are pointless with respect to the CIT theory. I know that you might have a tough time accepting this either because you really want a conspiracy or you are bored in GB and want to see if people respond when you pretend to be extremely dense.

To paraphrase a desperate proponent of CIT: "Finally (for the umpteenth time), enlighten me as to who saw the plane fly away. Ignore that question again and I'll take it as a concession that you can't....and that you concede that the CIT theory has no merit, whatsoever."

Still can't name one? Okay, I'll take that as a "no".

"He is describing the impact and what he thought the reason for it was."

Huh?

O'Brien's testimony is there for all to see. He saw no "impact". In fact he had to use the Potomac River to find a bearing as to where the plume was coming from! He arrived 3 minutes after the explosion.

If he couldn't immediately make out where the Pentagon was how do you suppose he could have seen a plane??

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

As you see in your post, Steve O'Brien's email says IMPACT and not a flyaway. He is describing the impact and what he thought the reason for it was. He saw the plane flying in, he saw the impact, he didn't see a plane fly away. People on the ground saw the plane fly in, saw the impact or the fireball, and didn't see the plane fly away. This means that the theory of a flyover must be rejected because there was no plane leaving the Pentagon and that all of your arguments are pointless with respect to the CIT theory. I know that you might have a tough time accepting this either because you really want a conspiracy or you are bored in GB and want to see if people respond when you pretend to be extremely dense.

To paraphrase a desperate proponent of CIT: "Finally (for the umpteenth time), enlighten me as to who saw the plane fly away. Ignore that question again and I'll take it as a concession that you can't....and that you concede that the CIT theory has no merit, whatsoever."

Still can't name one? Okay, I'll take that as a "no".

Still can't name one? OK, I'll take that as a concession that CIT's theory is cooked. No flyaway, no flyover. Goodbye Craig and Aldo.

Okay, now I've a chance to answer some other posts I hadn't time to answer.

The Jeff Hill video? 9-11 Witnesses.

Jeff Hill had a debate with Craig Ranke and admitted that the aircraft flew NOC!

Anyhoo..

First off, Thomas D. Trapasso is not a witness to an "impact". His apartment is behind the Navy Annex.

Thomas D. Trapasso, a political appointee in the Clinton Administration who is now looking for work, was making telephone calls from his deck in Arlington Village, about 1 mi. south of the Pentagon and just west of the Interstate 395 (I-395) highway. He was startled by the large American Airlines aircraft flying about 300 ft. overhead. "The engines were just screaming, and the wheels were up," Trapasso said. "It disappeared over the trees, and I heard a boom. I knew something awful had happened--that an airplane had crashed somewhere in Washington, D.C. Then the cell phone went dead. I was scared.

Source

Robert Leonard in the same interview used in the video

LEONARD: There used to be like, some kind of a gas station there, it went to that point.

HILL: Yeah yeah yeah that Citgo gas station so it would have flew over that or?

LEONARD: It was over that when it um, banked sharply to the right.

HILL: And did you happen to see it hit those light poles?

LEONARD: Um no I didn't see that ...

(...)

LEONARD: When the plane banked to the right say over to the Citgo station and then headed toward the Pentagon, the um memorial, which I haven't visited, um would have been below the plane's route.

Albert Hemphill

(This guy was coached and lied to by Jeff Hill) but in the end he still stuck to his North of Citgo story - I can go into the details if you want)

Ranke: but you saw the fuselage appear, was it directly over the top of the Navy Annex or ...

Hemphill: right over the top

Ranke: when you saw it pass the gas station, which side of the gas station was it on, was it on the Arlington Cemetery or north side or else perhaps the south side, the other side?

Hemphill: you know it's hard to say, it looked like it went right over the top .....

Ranke: would you say, if you had to say it was leaning towards one side or the other of the gas station, perhaps a portion of the plane, did it look directly over the top or what do you think?

Hemphill: yeah, I'd say more towards the cemetery side.

And in the same interview with HIll..

Hemphill: Yeah. [unintelligible] That just. It didn’t. There’s just no way! It came, it looked like it went over the gas station!

Before people jump on the "perspective" bandwagon, check his POV first and compare it to the official path:



Noel Supelveda

If you go to Google Earth, you'll see exactly where Scorpio Barracks is,(Henderson Hall), where the Sheraton Hotel is, that's the trajectory it took

i659.photobucket.com...

Steve Storti

Posting at Hill's forum about NOC witness, William Lagasse (who was at the Citgo Station) and the path he drew.

He is correct! At that point it was north of the Navy Annex but it did not come in North of the Navy Annex. The path he drew was consistent with mine except he didnt see the plane fly in. He didnt see it because of the height of the overpass. Route 395 is at least 30 to 40 feet high behind the citgo station. By the time he saw it, it was , from his perspective, on the North side of the annex. However. this is based in his perspective. What they didn't see is how it flew in! Both of the officers mirror my perspective, however they did not see the fly in path. Look at a topographical map of this area. That station is in a hollow, its tucled in to an area below the Navy Annex and 395. Also, please take into account the officers perspective may have been skewed by the fact that they were under the Citgo overhang which covered the pumps..

He was also talking (incorrectly) about Lagasse's fellow officer who drew the exact same path. But he wasn't under the canopy.

i14.photobucket.com...

Dave Winslow

At no point before that interview did Winslow ever claim to witness any "impact"

I heard this enormous sound of turbulence. . .As I turned to my right, I saw a jumbo tail go by me along Route 395...In a split second, you heard this boom. A combination of a crack and a thud...Then came an enormous fireball

Still don't see a pattern?

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer


Still don't see a pattern?

Oh, I do. Not a single person saw the plane fly over the Pentagon. You are doing nothing but cutting and pasting the same old tired laughable tripe from Laurel & Hardy. You, like them, ignore all the physical evidence.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Oh, I do. No a single person saw the plane fly over the Pentagon.

Maybe that's because there was a huge explosion hiding it, and people were not looking directly at it?

There is no physical evidence of a Boeing hitting the pentagon, other than a few parts that could have come from anywhere. There is no smoking gun evidence that flight 77 hit the pentagon. Let's not pretend there is, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Sean Boger was the only witness who could have really seen the impact and even he admits he dove to the ground, thus couldn't have seen the actual impact.

"It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building." Sean Boger

Everything that happened after he covered his head is an assumption.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Oh, I do. No a single person saw the plane fly over the Pentagon.

Maybe that's because there was a huge explosion hiding it, and people were not looking directly at it?

It would be extremely funny if this were really the case for the hundreds of folks lined up on the highway in traffic if it wasn't such a pathetic and desperate attempt to make an excuse to engage in an endless delusion...re:a flyover.

Originally posted by ANOK
There is no physical evidence of a Boeing hitting the pentagon, other than a few parts that could have come from anywhere. There is no smoking gun evidence that flight 77 hit the pentagon. Let's not pretend there is, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Every conclusion that "truthers" make includes a big fat whopping lie. There was tons of wreckage outlined in "Firefight to save the Pentagon". There are tons of wreckage available via photos on the 'net. The DNA of the passengers alone make this a pathetic attempt to deceive the gullible. The only reason for the discussion is that "truthers" tell lies to perpetuate the discussion as evidenced here.

Originally posted by ANOK
Sean Boger was the only witness who could have really seen the impact and even he admits he dove to the ground, thus couldn't have seen the actual impact.

And here is another one. Must you be so obvious? There were numerous folks who saw the impact and testified as such...

"It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building." Sean Boger

Originally posted by ANOK
Everything that happened after he covered his head is an assumption.

No it isn't an assumption, it's fact that the aircraft plowed through the building wiping out people and cutting a swatch though the building as outlined in the Building Performance Report published by the ASCE and also listed in detail in "The Firefight to save the Pentagon". But, you knew this already. It must be a masochistic steak that causes someone to so vividly display such obvious and blatant deception.

One would have thought that an ignorant display of "truther" physics would have been enough to embarrass normal people, but I guess not.....

reply to post by ThePostExaminer

Still don't see a pattern?

Oh yes, I certainly do.

I see someone who very likely does not have any actual (nor extensive) experience of visiting the location, and seeing for themselves the reality of the region. "Armchair" investigating is what the '*pattern* here is.


Here once again, from the eyewitness quoted lastly in the latest extravaganza above- - Dave Winslow.

....the relevant portion of what he said:

"As I turned to my right, I saw a jumbo tail go by me along Route 395...In a split second, you heard this boom. A combination of a crack and a thud...Then came an enormous fireball..."

Take another gander at the photo used in the post. (A modern photo, BTW)**. Note the physical location of Route 395, as compared to the "Citgo" gas station (now renamed).

Yes, I see a "pattern"....several.



(**)In fact, if you note....the Pentagon Memorial is pictured in that current photo. If you get a chance to visit, you will see that there are lines drawn in the ground, that represent the course of the airplane as it passed directly over that spot. In addition, the width of the Memorial is exactly 124 feet, 10 inches...to represent the wingspan of the Boeing 757.

Originally posted by ANOK


Maybe that's because there was a huge explosion hiding it, and people were not looking directly at it?

This is hilarious. Maybe everyone in and around the Pentagon who heard an explosion looked the other way?

There is no physical evidence of a Boeing hitting the pentagon, other than a few parts that could have come from anywhere. There is no smoking gun evidence that flight 77 hit the pentagon. Let's not pretend there is, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The only one pretending here is you, ANOK. As Reheat mentioned, there was quite a lot of debris. There was an FDR, there were personal belongings, there was DNA evidence. Also, as Reheat stated, the book Firefight has first hand information that you obviously missed out on.

Page 29:

The airplane deposited its contents throughout the Pentagon in horrible grotesque ways, all of the destruction following the laws of Physics. When the airplane had burst on impact, the blast threw many pieces backward onto the lawn by the helipad, some with such force they landed on the other side of Washington Boulevard nearly 1K ft away. But thousands of pieces also carried forward and up, even over the roof of the building. In the Pentagon's inner courtyard, tiny pieces of aluminum drifted down like confetti. Other pieces landed on the roof, along with body parts from at least one of the victims.....The body of the hijacker that had been flying the plane ended up in the D ring, about 100 feet from the impact point. The corpses of four fellow hijackers landed nearby.

..... Most alarming, all the electrical feeders were still running- and the smell of jet fuel was overwhelming.

Source: Firefight Inside the battle to save the Pentagon on 911.

reply to post by ANOK

Maybe that's because there was a huge explosion hiding it, and people were not looking directly at it?

Oh yeah? What about the tourist on the side of the road that filmed the whole thing? Haven't heard of him? Well neither have I, but please tell me how the conspirators managed to completely control the sight view of the one the worlds largest buildings, in the middle of the morning, in one of the busiest metropolitan centers on the east coast of the United States of America to the extent that there would not be anyone, anywhere that could've filmed, photographed or otherwise documented the David Copperfield act.

There is no physical evidence of a Boeing hitting the pentagon, other than a few parts that could have come from anywhere.

So, basically there is no physical evidence, well, except for the physical evidence.

There is no smoking gun evidence that flight 77 hit the pentagon.

Well, its not "smoking gun", is much more direct and irrefutable than that.

Let's not pretend there is, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

There is no "discussion".

Sean Boger was the only witness who could have really seen the impact and even he admits he dove to the ground, thus couldn't have seen the actual impact.

Well, unless the explosion somehow miraculously happened before the event that casued the explosion, then you are just plain wrong.

Everything that happened after he covered his head is an assumption.

Not really.

reply to post by ProudBird

Take another gander at the photo used in the post. (A modern photo, BTW)**. Note the physical location of Route 395, as compared to the "Citgo" gas station (now renamed).

At no point of the OCT path does the aircraft cross the I-395. In fact the witnessed path at the I-395 would have been similar at that stage.

The point is, Winslow originally never claimed to actually see any alleged "impact". He heard and felt the explosion then claimed to see the fireball (which was claimed to have been 200ft in diameter.

This isn't directed at you ProudBird...at least you're making an effort to discuss this. I'm really disappointed that valid points that I've raised throughout this thread and posts I've answered have been met with childish name calling and dodges.

I made a valid point about the OCT impact not being a cut and dry clear view from a camera 1 metre above a GoogleEarth car. Most were inside cars (which itself has bind spots), in heavy traffic, and within the alleged 1.3 seconds for the aircraft to reach the facade on crossing the road, and the claim is that they were able to not only see what happened through an alleged 200 ft diameter fireball (the lawn is 400ft in length!) but were able to stare at an impending planecrash and blast felt 3km away?

The topic is "witness testimony". I've outlined overwhelming evidence that the aircraft was seen to have flown NOC through first hand interviews not only by CIT but their "detractors" too!

Why can't people name just one witness to counter all of these witnesses who were apparently fooled by "perspective" or were all "wrong" in the same way?

So yes, I definitely see an undeniable pattern.

reply to post by hooper

please tell me how the conspirators managed to completely control the sight view of the one the worlds largest buildings, in the middle of the morning, in one of the busiest metropolitan centers on the east coast of the United States of America to the extent that there would not be anyone, anywhere that could've filmed, photographed or otherwise documented the David Copperfield act.

You're asking the wrong person for any video or phtographic evidence.

One such camera was removed by the FBI and never released:

www.thepentacon.com...

The OCT is that the aircraft took just over 2 seconds to reach Route 27 from it appeared on the scene in that basin of land and just 1.3 seconds from the road to the facade.

By the time anybody got their heads around just wth was happening there was a massive explosion. You're forgetting a little thing called reaction time

There is evidence that the aircraft flew on a trajectory that makes the "physical damage" impossible.

In a statement from the Army Corps of Engineers on the design of the Pentagon renovation:

At Khobar Towers, for example, most of the damage and casualties were caused by flying debris from the structure and the glass, et cetera," says Flowers. "And so based on that, we worked, designed, things to prevent flying debris and flying glass
(...)
The Corps is making a study of safer buildings by setting off its own bombs at a research center in Mississippi. Reed Mosher is the technical director for survivability. They have developed a team of specialists that goes to these terrorist strikes as soon as they happen. The buildings tell the team a great deal. "We want to find what performed well, what didn't perform well, try to characterize the size of the bomb, the blast," says Mosher. MOSHER ALSO DESIGNS HIS OWN TERRORIST BOMBINGS IN MINIATURE WITH EXACTING SCALE MODELS OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS. RECENTLY, MOSHER'S TEAM TESTED A COMMON INTERIOR WALL, PARTICLE BOARD, STEEL WALL STUDS AND SHEETROCK. THE WALL IS SET IN A STEEL FRAME WITH INSTRUMENTS INSIDE. THEN THEY SET OFF A BOMB. MOSHER HAS DONE HUNDREDS OF THESE, IN AN EFFORT TO CREATE NEW BUILDING MATERIALS. THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS RUNS THESE EXPERIMENTS THROUGH ITS SUPER COMPUTER CENTER, WHICH IS ONE OF THE MOST POWERFUL IN THE NATION. THE COMPUTER CAN TEST VARIOUS KINDS OF BOMBS AGAINST DIFFERENT BUILDINGS WITHOUT BREAKING ANY GLASS. IN A SPECIAL 3-D IMAGING ROOM MOSHER SHOWED HOW THE SUPER COMPUTERS RECREATES THE BLAST WAVE THAT HIT KHOBAR TOWERS. IT PREDICTS THE PATH OF EVERY SHARD OF GLASS FROM A SINGLE BREAKING WINDOW.
Mosher is the head of the ERDC for Homeland Security: "ERDC has long been a research leader in weapons effects, protective structures, and survivability. Over the years, this research led to .. retrofits to improve protection in existing buildings, and tools to help do vulnerability assessments. These protective technologies have been used in many government buildings.. THESE PROTECTIVE DESIGNS AND STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS WENT THROUGH A VARIETY OF EXPLOSIVES TESTS AND COMPUTER MODELING OVER THE YEARS, but the biggest test occurred on Sep. 11, 2001....it obliterated the first and second floors. BUT THE PLANE IMPACTED THE FIRST WEDGE OF THE PENTAGON THAT HAD JUST BEEN RENOVATED USING A VARIETY OF ERDC-DEVELOPED PROTECTIVE TECHNOLOGIES ON THE WALLS AND WINDOWS"

The means were there no doubt.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer

I've outlined overwhelming evidence that the aircraft was seen to have flown NOC through first hand interviews not only by CIT but their "detractors" too!

Untrue.

The "overwhelming" evidence becomes "underwhelming" when you realize it IS just a matter of mistaken memory, and poorly-explained mistakes in location, distance judgement, angles and perception.

What is more....anyone who has actually been there, in person, can see the "NOC theory" for the nonsense it truly is. Take a look at the Google Earth maps again.....I have personally walked all the way from the Sheraton, down bast the Navy Barracks, to the "Citgo" gas station (now re-named). Walked all the way 'round, to the underpass beneath Route 395. Pedestrian access is not restricted, except for the very close proximity of the Pentagon, away from public access entry points.

When you are there, and an see for yourself the terrain and building elevations (the "lay of the land"), it becomes clear. This is more difficult to understand from the overhead Google view. One could, if one took a great deal of time, get a sense of this scale by using "Street View"....but, your mobility choices are limited by that Google "camera" feature.


But of course, the final nails in the coffin lid for "CIT" are the airplane's FDR, and the Pentagon Building Performance Report (have you had a chance to read that yet??). The airplane heading, from the FDR, is clear. The geometry is therefore unassailable. The PBPR document corroborates the former.

Science is demonstrable and repeatable and verifiable. "Eyewitness" testimony is usually fraught with inconsistencies and Human foibles and errors. It must all be considered, in the over-all sense of things, to piece the facts together. Unreliable reports are thus given far less weight over-all than those more credible, and logical and consistent.

reply to post by ProudBird


Same old, same old ProudBird.

All the witnesses were "wrong" in the same way doesn't fly.
I've shown you witnesses who couldn't possibly have been confused by perspective and some who couldn't physically see the official path. I've already outlined those who made the same claims in 2001, so the memory "card" is a non runner. But the major issue is the corroboration and the fact that even knowing the implications of the path they described, they stood by what they said.

The funniest thing is that this thread is nearly 7 pages long and none of you have offered a witness who counters the NOC witnesses. Even those who claimed to witness an "impact" describe anything but the official path. You have no problem with that?

And yes, I've read the ASCE Report.

reply to post by ProudBird


As for your claim that marks are "visible" on the facade where the vertical stabilizer allegedly struck, this is obviously false. Can you see the "marks" in this precollapse image?

www.dodmedia.osd.mil...

Even the ASCE Report denied that there were "marks" (in blue):

img204.imageshack.us...

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


I never said this:

As for your claim that marks are "visible" on the facade where the vertical stabilizer allegedly struck....

The wings. There are photos out there that show the limestone facade blocks having been affected by the wing impacts.

The vertical stabilizer is, as I said, a composite material. Not aluminum, nor as substantial in build as the wings.

The vertical stabilizer would have shattered on impact, at those speeds and against the stone.

So....is it now the contention that no airplane at all hit the Pentagon?

Despite the evident debris from a Boeing 757....a destroyed Boeing 757? And the DNA from the passengers and crew? And the personal effects? And the path of damage shown? And the debris that continued ahead to punch out ultimately at the C-Ring?

All of that (plus much, much more) must be "ignored" in order to proceed with an "hypothesis" of "no airplane".....seems ludicrous, on its face.

reply to post by ProudBird


From your earlier post as well..

Watch the Mike Wilson video again. The first four lamp poles interact with the respective wings at about the mid-point....the pole #5 strike is farthest out, left wing....but, still inboard enough that the brunt of the impact was borne by the leading edge.....and, the leading edge slats, that were in the retracted position. The wings were certainly strong enough, at that velocity, due to the kinetic energy of momentum.

Mike Wilson is wrong according to the directional damage and dimensions of a 757.

According to the OCT fightpath the right wingtip was responsible for poles 1 and 3.

The outer third of the left wing allegedly struck pole 2 and the midpoint of the left wing llegedly struck lightpole 5.




Mike Wilson's video is biased and inaccurate on that point in that the OCT path is so specific.
He also omitted the alleged tilt which would make his depiction of the aircraft sliding into the first floor a lot more difficult given the dearth of recognizable debris.

Here's the real OCT claim:



The plane would have struck the second floor slab head on. At 540mph (another impossible feat at low altitude)

This is a pretty accurate scaled diagram of a 757 vs the Pentagon facade (although it too is missing the alleged "tilt")



Now at this speed (actually 40mph less than the OCT speed)..

www.youtube.com...

No buckling? Total penetration? No marks on the facade from the vertical stablizer?

www.youtube.com...

This is why I have a major problem with any "impact" scenario. The NOC testimony which has the aircraft nowhere near the damage trajectory proves that it's a sham.

The fact is there is no evidence that proves conclusively that a plane hit the Pentagon.
The fact is there was no investigation into the alleged Pentagon crash.
The fact is there is no real evidence to prove the alleged plane really existed; there were no maintenance records or fuelling records much less insurance records to prove the plane was in commercial operation.
The fact is we are told a story by many people in our government and THEY want you to believe them with blind faith, as if our government has never lied to us before.
The fact is the OS of the Pentagon crash cannot stand up to real science.

reply to post by impressme


You used the word "fact" about five times...yet, not one of those statements is indeed, a fact

Those are apparently an opinion held by.....about one individual (or, perhaps maybe a handful of others?)

Compared to thousands, if not millions of others who have reviewed all of the evidence, and would merely rolltheir eyes at the claims (those five) made as "facts"....