9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by gavron John Lear also believes there were no planes, just projected holograms.

Was i talking about holograms? I was talking about his outstanding aviation record that cannot be questioned.

Originally posted by beachnut What evidence does John Lear have.

The FDR and his very long and record holding expearience. [edit on 24-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 I was talking about his outstanding aviation record that cannot be questioned.

So you selectively pick the things you like about John Lear? You ignore everything about his statements? Picking and choosing what suits your conspiracy theory again?

While some of what beachnut says, in concert with what reheat provides, is more or less what what I wanted, that being the factual reasons for why he could or could not fly adequately (hani) I still have alot of apprehension thinking that beach asked ALL these pilots he flew with back in the day, and so many more....you dont have numbers behind you aside from immaterial or irrelevant speculation on what your ex-coworkers MIGHT say. Fact is you dont know any more conclusively what happened on that day than the rest of us even if you believe in one story or another, so as I stated before, dont post numbers you cant verify. To clarify, reheat was actually the one who provided the information I asked you to provide (thanks by the way to him). Its perfectly fine to post your opinion based on your experience but unless you were privy to some info the rest of the world was not, then its no less a theory than john lear's. Despite the flying capability of hani,there are other inconsistencies that need be dealt with before anyone can say deffinitively that the official story coincides with the evidence and testimony.I dont think I should state the major ones as they have been sited on this forum over and over and arent hard to find should you feel the need to review them. Thanks again to reheat for the explanation.

Originally posted by gavron So you selectively pick the things you like about John Lear? You ignore everything about his statements? Picking and choosing what suits your conspiracy theory again?

I think he just meant that the fact that John Lear is quite capable at flying in a multitude of aircraft and chose another explanation for what did happen that did not include the pilots in question as oppose to resorting to what for HIM would have been easy to deduce as plausible ability to fly or not so much seems to stand out as odd. I mean dont you think johnny boy is probably a pretty good go to guy when you want a more than adequate opinion on the subject (considering his experience)?

Originally posted by gavron So you selectively pick the things you like about John Lear?

NO i post the information that deals with the topic. The topic is avaition related. Its just to bad you cannot question his aviation record and experience.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 NO i post the information that deals with the topic. The topic is avaition related. Its just to bad you cannot question his aviation record and experience.

You are correct, we cannot question his aviation record. Unfortunately this is a fallacious Appeal to Authority. You proceed to then deny Mr Lear's claims regarding the planes impacting the building, so while his record is obviously beyond question, you also disagree with his claims. Therefore you cannot use his opinion to support any particular theory.

Originally posted by exponent You proceed to then deny Mr Lear's claims regarding the planes impacting the building, so while his record is obviously beyond question, you also disagree with his claims. Therefore you cannot use his opinion to support any particular theory.

Where have i denied his claims reguarding the planes impacting the buildings?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 Where have i denied his claims reguarding the planes impacting the buildings?

Oh, well I guess if you truly believe there may have been no planes that day then I have no desire to debate this with you further. Such theories require a level of ignorance which makes actual debate impossible. I happen to know two people who personally saw the second plane impact WTC2. As far as I am concerned, this is not a fact which can be debated.

Originally posted by exponent Oh, well I guess if you truly believe there may have been no planes that day then I have no desire to debate this with you further.

Have i stated anything about his claims? Why do you guys have to twist or misquote things all the time?

reply to post by ULTIMA1 It's been over 7 years Roger. What do you "think" hit the Pentagon? Simple question. [edit on 9/25/0808 by ThroatYogurt]

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt It's been over 7 years Roger. What do you "think" hit the Pentagon?

Well i do not do theories. I do not know what hit the Pentagon because we do not have all the facts and evidence. There is a lot more questions than answers as to what really happened that day.

reply to post by ULTIMA1 what a cop-out. Allow me to ask you this; With the evidence provided for the past 7 years, what is your opinion as to what if anything hit the Pentagon?

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt With the evidence provided for the past 7 years, what is your opinion as to what if anything hit the Pentagon?

What evidence? The FBI and FAA refuse to release even simple evidence about serial numbers. A cop out is still a lot better then being dishonest and stating you know what happened without evidence. [edit on 25-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1 I tell you what Roger. Go to page 1 of this thread and read Catherders OP. THEN...tell me after reading that what you think hit the pentagon.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 Have i stated anything about his claims? Why do you guys have to twist or misquote things all the time?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 Where have i denied his claims reguarding the planes impacting the buildings?

You don't deny his claims, and as such you must believe there is potential for merit in them. If this is the case, I cannot debate it with you, as his claims are close to what I would consider insanity. I would have thought it was pretty simple to understand. I guess maybe I put it badly.

Originally posted by nassau

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord This is not the Saturday Morning cartoons, objects do not create holes that represent their exact profile.

maybe not an EXACT profile, but pretty close... what stopped the wings from vaporizing before reaching the WTC?

I thought the evidence you presented was awesome until i saw this picture which basically proves a lot of your evidence/theories wrong.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt I tell you what Roger. Go to page 1 of this thread and read Catherders OP. THEN...tell me after reading that what you think hit the pentagon.

I will decide what hit the Pentagon when i see actual, verifiable facts and not what we were told to beleive by the media or others opionions. Why are you afraid to think for yourself and only believe what you are told by the media?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt I tell you what Roger. Go to page 1 of this thread and read Catherders OP. THEN...tell me after reading that what you think hit the pentagon.

I will decide what hit the Pentagon when i see actual, verifiable facts and not what we were told to beleive by the media or others opionions. Why are you afraid to think for yourself and only believe what you are told by the media?

just leave him alone, hes not the only American to believe what the media tells him. im amazed that he came on this site, the truth was opened to him and yet he stills believes the media.

Originally posted by SauberBMW just leave him alone, hes not the only American to believe what the media tells him. im amazed that he came on this site, the truth was opened to him and yet he stills believes the media.

Well he will hve to face reallity because when post the NSA document about flight 93 he has to leave.