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

reply to post by pteridine


I'll answer that after you answer my question.

reply to post by ATH911


Answering your question about NOC.

1. Parallax problems
2. Selective interviews
3. Physical evidence trumps "I think it was over there."

What happened to the plane?

reply to post by impressme


OOPS! I misspelled his name, right there, thats the smoking gun that proves 9/11 is an inside job. What you once again, failed to comprehend, is that when someone makes a formal statement and it is accepted by a court, it becomes EVIDENCE. The exhibits in the trial, whether or not you think proved his guilt, did show that Flight 77 did indeed crash into the Pentagon.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

No fly away = no fly over.

Everyone didn't blink or duck on impact. This was a real gem of an explanation and was a source of great amusement for those in the real world.

Yes, pterdine, everybody sat unwavering and watched that big assed explosion.

Ever been there when an unexpected explosion occurs?

@01:40



And I never said "everyone". Stop misquoting my posts.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by impressme

 

And you continue to show just how little you actually know about the subject. When someone makes a formal statement about what they witnessed, and it is accepted into evidence in a court of law, it is no longer "hearsay", it's called evidence. You should do some more research in the Moussari trial exhibits.


Or were all those people involved in that trial in on it too?

And the NOC witness testimony isn't deemed to be "evidence" because...?

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


Has it been entered into a legal proceeding and accepted as evidence? Of course, I was pressed for time and didnt include the photos, FDR records, maintenance records and assorted other evidence that was presented in the trial, not just the eyewitness statements. Face it, the records that were introduced in his trial, and accepted as evidence, shows that Flight 77 was hijacked by Muslim terrorists and crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. End of story.

reply to post by vipertech0596

OOPS! I misspelled his name, right there, thats the smoking gun that proves 9/11 is an inside job. What you once again, failed to comprehend, is that when someone makes a formal statement and it is accepted by a court, it becomes EVIDENCE. The exhibits in the trial, whether or not you think proved his guilt, did show that Flight 77 did indeed crash into the Pentagon.

It is really amazing how you completely *ignored* my last post to you. Having this discussion with you is like talking to a roll of toilet paper you ignore credible evidence and sources and continue to “parrot” the OS.
The exhibits in the trial, whether or not “you think proved his guilt,” did not prove Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. How does that work for you?

reply to post by vipertech0596

Face it, the records that were introduced in his trial, and accepted as evidence, shows that Flight 77 was hijacked by Muslim terrorists and crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. End of story.

That has never been proven even the head of the FBI admitted publicly that we will never know who the real hijackers were because they left no paper trail. FBI also admitted publicly that all the hijackers were using stolen identities, so the next question is to whom were the FBI matching DNA to?
The fact is the alleged crash was never investigated, according to the FBI, so there is absolutely no evidence that supports the government’s claims. I should know I spent a year trying to prove the OS true there is no real evidence to support the culprit’s claims.

reply to post by ProudBird

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

Let me remind you of an earlier post you made.

The only ones who claim the nosecone made it "all the way through" are those in the so-called "truth movement".

The claim about the nosecone is far from a "truther" invention.

Lee Evey, head of the Pentagon Renovation Project stated at a DOD media briefing..

The nose of the plane just barely broke through the inside of the C ring, so it was extending into A-E Drive a little bit. ... The airplane traveled in a path about like this, and the nose of the aircraft broke through this innermost wall of C ring into A-E Drive.

The same claim was made at the Massaoui trial by FBI agent Jacqueline Maguire (who was also in charge of the FOIA requests for multiple videos that were sequestered)

FBI Agent Jacqueline Maguire testified that the nose of the Boeing 757 that crashed into the Pentagon penetrated to the building's third ring, known as the "C" ring. Photos showed a blackened, gaping hole in the outer wall
Source

A survivor who was inside the Pentagon at the time of the attack, claims to have escaped into AE Drive where the alleged "punch out hole" is.

This time, according to Correa, he found out what caused the horrific attack he survived earlier that morning; he saw the nose cone and the landing gear of the airliner.
www.army.mil..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Source

And then there's this from a "government scientist" who was involved in the "bomb proofing" of the renovated section.



So, the vertical stabilizer "shattered" into tiny pieces without damaging even the outer masonry (which was there for decoration more than anything), which left the ASCE guys "stumped", yet the nosecone, made of carbon fibre, smashed its way through the perimeter wall, which had allegedly been reinforced with a connected steel web and kevlar, through the columns and finally smashed its way through to AE Drive in what appears to be a recognizable form?

Really?

reply to post by impressme


Just shows your continued ignorance when it comes to reality. How's that?

reply to post by impressme


And you continue to rely on an FBI release issued the first week after the attacks, and completely ignore the releases where the FBI states definitively who the hijackers were. Again, continued ignorance of reality.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by ATH911

 

Answering your question about NOC.

1. Parallax problems
2. Selective interviews
3. Physical evidence trumps "I think it was over there."

1. Parallax? Sounds like you're arguing how the plane trajectories look in the WTC videos. These people saw what they saw in person. You had Sgt. Lagasse(sp?) on the north side of the Citgo seeing the plane fly on the north side. "100%" sure he was. Eleven(?) other corroborated his testimony.
2. Where's your skeptic's interviews of any SoC witnesses to compare?
3. It doesn't matter if a plane hit or not, if a dozen people saw it fly NoC, that proves the official story WRONG!!!

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


Well, depends on what you are referring to as the "nosecone". The composite cap that is mounted to the forward bulkhead of the nose section, OR if you are referring TO the nose section itself. Quite likely that pieces of the composite cap stuck around until what was left of the nose section punched out into the drive. Either way, its like arguing if a handgun with 10 rounds pointed at your heart is more dangerous than a handgun with 5 rounds. In the end, it doesnt really matter. The photos of the wreckage show pieces of the nose gear and cockpit lying just outside of the "punch out" hole. Does it really matter if the entirity of the composite nosecap made it all the way through the building?

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


You might want to read the building performance report a little closer. And pay attention to the photos taken pre-collapse. You might just notice a damaged area of the limestone about where the vertical stab was. Not a huge area, but a damaged area nonetheless...that corresponds to the area of the jet where the stab was mounted.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
The photos of the wreckage show pieces of the nose gear and cockpit lying just outside of the "punch out" hole.

Link to photos?

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


No fly away, PostEx. CIT theory doesn't make the grade.

Yes, I've been around some sudden explosions but fortunately not in any of them.

Originally posted by pteridine

No fly away, PostEx. CIT theory doesn't make the grade.

Only if you are right (no fly away) and their theory has only one part to it. Too bad for you it doesn't (their theory having only one part to it).


.

Originally posted by ATH911

Only if you are right (no fly away) and their theory has only one part to it. Too bad for you it doesn't (their theory having only one part to it).

Do you have any photos with the plane on the north side of citgo. We have photos showing it on the path recorded by the FDR and crashing in to the Pentagon.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Do you have any photos with the plane on the north side of citgo. We have photos showing it on the path recorded by the FDR and crashing in to the Pentagon.

Really?! Link please!!!

reply to post by vipertech0596

And you continue to rely on an FBI release issued the first week after the attacks, and completely ignore the releases where the FBI states definitively who the hijackers were. Again, continued ignorance of reality.

Speaking of ignorance of reality we are still waiting to see the proof to who these hijackers really were.
Again we are back to government hearsay and you have well demonstrated that you are completely one sided in your beliefs and thinking. I understand one’s loyalty on faith base hearsay information from our government but please stop throwing your logic out the window when having this debate, it makes you sound oblivious.