they got evidence the official story is worng and instead of making that the main issue they make it all about a flyover, which they have no evidence for.
@punxsutawneybarney Physical evidence isn't lies. Either you understand physical reality and accept it or you believe in hearsay. America was brought up to falsely believe in the latter. This is why the shills like NatGeo never actually show the physical evidence to the public.
@MrSammo1 When you look at the observable evidence of airplane debris at the Pentagon, witnesses who say the plane hit the Pentagon, lack of any credible flyover witnesses, complete lack of motivation for a flyover op, and CIT's record of persistent dishonesty, CIT lacks all credibility.
@MrSammo1 That is total speculation. You have no evidence that is so. CIT's own witnesses claim the plane hit the building, and there is no witness at all that claims the plane flew over.
@punxsutawneybarney ... watch my videos with Jeff hill in title, you dont have the facts .... he interviews some frauds who claim they were there, you decide on the truth
@pt1gard I don't see how it matters 'cause we'll never get people in the mainstream to care. All that happens is that the whole controversy is enormously distracting and discrediting to the truth movement. After all these years CIT can't find one person who will say they saw a flyover plane. And they lie. I have no patience for people who lie about 9/11.
@punxsutawneybarney ... ok so I was just curious what you believed, the official story or that 911 was based on lies ... either way its still interesting hearing these people lie to jeff, who doesnt call them out.
@pt1gard Jeff used to be a WTC no-planer, so I question his judgment. And apparently he recorded Albert Hemphill and posted the recording without Hemphill's permission. I don't have time for people who act like that.
@MrSammo1 There is no physical evidence of flyover. There is no eyewitness evidence of flyover. The CITheads live in a fantasy world and make the truth movement look like a bunch of idiots.
yeah imagine that. dozens of peer reviewed articles in real journals reviewed by hundreds of experts in their fields are just passing BS. meanwhile the TM has 0. oh who to believe?
@grandmastershek In our monetary system paying people to lie is the norm. If my observational take on what really happened wasn't correct the physical facts would have been shown to the American public years ago.
what scientific evidence? the "paper" by jones and company that avoided a rel peer review? funny, 2 labs were supposed to corroborate this research, 1 claims his samples were tampered with, and the other is silent. i wonder why? not to mention harrit has refused to provide samples for independent analysis on request.
in case you guys forgot no one has demonstrate that any for of thermtie can cut a steel column. in fact, every experiment failed.
unless it provides a real peer review in a real journal i could care less what the new excuses are.
wait...just key word searched. not one mention or addressing the non peer review process. let us know when you guys can act like real academics. not to mention it in no way addresses what i posted.
So I guess CIT's little soiree in Arlington was poorly attended and the threat that they might get more than fifteen minutes seems to be over. Agreed?
You know what is really funny Scootle? Me trying to use huge lists of people to prove that the number of people that claim to have seen the impact is well above 14. How many of those 14 say they saw the impact again?
are you telling me the HUNDRED PLUS FIRST RESPONDERS who are on record talking about picking up airline seats with burnt bodies still attached to them and removing 757 parts that were EMBEDDED IN COLUMNS (planting is one thing but embedding them in columns - I don't think so) are all lying?
Go to amazon, buy a book called "firefight: inside the battle to save the pentagon on 9/11"... read it, a hundred times if u have to, until it sinks in that the pentagon no plane stuff is disinfo.
Is that the same book that mentions the 3 fake firefighters arrested?
That mentions firefighters describing what they said was a ´military guy´ who introduced himself AND HIS FRIENDS as PenRen ´go-betweens´ who the FBI said they wanted to question because he not only interfered with evidence but even the corpses at the crime scene?
He disappeared along with his friends.
Name the ´hundred plus responders´ who found all these airline seats with burnt bodies. Photos? Proof?
No, you're not being stubborn. You're being arrogant. Like all no planers and CIT freaks, you are telling people that they saw something other than what they actually saw.
I took that drive every day for five straight years. I know what can and can't be seen from that stretch of highway. And on 9/11 I absolutely know that you can see the pentagon (and unfrotunately) things crashing into it.
Maybe you need to make another trip down to DC and reasses what you think you know.
You're being arrogant. I am telling you what I saw and you make the comment --All I can tell you is from the position given for kilometres up and down that stretch of road there is no place you can see the Pentagon.--
You are telling me what I saw. How is that not arrogant?
CIT interviewed people year's after the event. Memory gets sketcy.
I linked you to a collection of about a hundred people who saw the plane crash into the pentagon. The sources are within weeks of the event. How did they get it wrong?
Why do CIT freaks accept their 13 witness but not the hundreds of other witness, plane wreckage, DNA findings, first reponders reports, ect. Because they are arrogant kooks.
The NoC witnesses were ALSO interviewed in the weeks after the event.
Your witnesses again:
Deb Analuf :
"Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon. It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon)¨
That is across the navy annex. Straight. She saw a fireball.
Ralph Banton:
on a house porch more than a mile away from the Pentagon.
"It sounded like it was jetting instead of slowing down." What the hell did he witness??
Show me a CIT interview that occured weeks after the event.
You're doing what CIT freaks do. Looking through hundreds of eyewitnesses and cherry picking a few that support your claim. Or seem to odd for you to accept.
Understand that eyewitnesses will not always absorb everything that is going on. They will missinterpret what they have just seen. And over time things will blur or be retold differently in one's mind.
"It was coming down head first," he said. "And when the impact hit, the cars and everything were just shaking."
There was no divebomb manouvre. He says ´when the plane hit´. He didn´t SEE it hit.
Gary Bauer:
Could NOT see impact from where he was. CIT have photos of his location.
Sean Boger
CIT interviewed him and he saw the plane approach from the right of Citgo (facing him) He was in the helicopter tower for God´s sake. Waaay off from the lightpoles.
Allegedly watching out the 19th floor window during a fire alarm set off 1 minute before the attack. He was 2 miles away.
He said he saw it hit the lawn.
The plane allegedly flew southside, low and level. His entire view is blocked until the plane reaches the highway. How the hell did he know the exact 2 seconds to watch?
He said he saw it treetop level. He had to have seen it Northside to view this.
The FDR data contradicts the official story but also contradicts the only possible alternative theory ... a flyover... its last reading was 400 feet above the pentagon ... 400 feet ... thats some flyover! Not exactly flying into an explosion like CIT claim is it?
You interpret what people say to mean what you want it to. Not one person, NOT ONE says, 'I saw the plane fly over the pentagon and drop a bomb/missle (or whatever)'.
And I've already said, remember what side of CITGO the plane flew is obviously very hard, since witnesses give differing oppions, and you only latch on to those that support your theory.
I challenge you again. Let's use other sources besides eyewtinesses to prove our theories. You willing?
....by the FBI, NTSB or FAA..no records would have been generated responsive to your request for documents revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from the aircraft used during the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant (with the aid of the National Transportation Safety Board), as belonging to the said aircraft, presumably though the use of unique serial number identifying information contained by the said aircraft wreckage.¨
Yes, I want one of your witnesses to say, to some degree, --I saw the plane fly over the pentagon--. Bonus if they say something along the lines of, -the plane dropped something into the building.--
I'm not insulting you. You're theories are baseless and insane. You take some eyewitness accounts that support a preconcieved theory, instead of trying to prove your theory. Why do you ignore the physical evidence in the Pentagon? Why do you ignore the witnesses (including some CIT witnesses) who saw the plane hit the penatgon?
There is no debate, because there are no materials to debate. You are misintepreting evidence, not presenting evidence.
How much detail is required to remember a simple detail as to which side of the gas station they saw the plane on?
A simple matter of left or right.
Or the 5 ANC workers who had the BEST positioning to see the initial approach coming over the Navy Annex on the right hand side facing them.
The 2 Pentagon cops who saw the plane on the Northside and the reason they are 100% sure is that if it had been on southside they would not have seen it??
The Federal Bureau of Investigations Records/Information Dissemination Section:
¨¨The Record/Information Dissemination Section (RIDS) again conducted a search for potentially responsive records....After this extensive research, RIDS has been unable to locate any FBI records responsive to your request. RIDS search efforts included verification by the responsible FBIHQ operational division that because the identity of the three hijacked aircraft has never been in question....contd
....remembering that de la Cerda could only see the top floor of the Pentagon.
Why were people yelling that a plane had dropped a bomb ´and flew over´ according to Eric Dihle? Remember this was in the immediate aftermath and 45 minutes after news had filtered through of the plane attacks on the towers. Why say a plane had dropped a bomb?
Because people MUST have seen the plane fly over.
Why did Statter´s witnesses claim that the plane ´tried to divert at the last minute´?
I'm not watching two hours of kookery. Just provide me with the quotes of the people you feel say that fligt 77 flew over the pentagon. If they are in that video tell me at what point in the film they are.
Ok, I'll just cut to the chase since you aren't getting to it. NO ONE saw a fly over. Not one person. Every witness who saw the plane saw it hit the pentagon. North of Citgo ect ect, means nothing. The fact is, a plane hit the Pentagon, and no eye witness testimony getting the flight path wrong is going to change that.
The CIT freaks are freaks, because, like you, they are arrogant assholes. They tell people what they saw, but dismiss witness testimony when it contradicts what they want to believe.
The reason no one will debate the CIT boys is because there is nothing to debate. They take 13 people (out of hundreds) and take a little bit of their testimony to create a situation that did not occur.
How has this video debunked ANYTHING that CIT have disclosed?
Are all those witnesses wrong? Please don´t quote the ´100 witnesses to an impact´ bullcrap because your argument will be torn to shreds if you do. There are MORE confirmed and verified Northside witnesses that corraborate than so called ´impact witnesses´.
CIT´s work along with P4911T have PROVEN FDR/RADES data to be a fraud.
None of this evidence is detrimental to any other evidence mentioned here.
Well since I know the towers were demolished I know the operation had to be perfect... thats why the planes had to have been remote controlled... they would have had to have taken every possible step to make sure nothing would go wrong with the operation ... the pentagon no plane hypothesise are all too messy... it would have been too much of a risk for them to fake a plane crash when they could just crash the plane.
Why would the planes have to have been remote controlled? And if they were, was flight 11, 175, 77 and 93 what was crashed, or are you a proponent of the plane switch theory?
well for one thing it took experienced pilots about 10 attempts to hit the WTC in a simulator at the reported speeds. Secondly, if it was an inside job, which it was, theres no way they would leave it to humans.
I dont have an oppinion either way ... theres no real evidence to suggest the planes were switched... just conjecture based on operation northwoods... but in operation northwoods the switch was to so that noone would die... on 9/11 people obviously did die so there's no point of them switching.
Since the DNA of the hijackers and the DNA of most of the passengers were found at the crime scenes, I'd say the planes probably were the ones they said.
Ok, so fair enough. Do mention hijackers...do you think that there were arabs involved, but they were pawns (or some similar situation)? Moreover, whas there a 'hijacking' of any kind?
I ask, only because it helps to know what are you arguing before actually debating the argument.
By the way. Operation Northwoods never happened, and the person who thought of it was forced to resign. that event has nothing to do with 9/11. Loose change is not a text book.
The arabs were on the plane ... they are dead... It's possible that they may have simply been actors believing to be taking part in a hijack drill... altho that doesn't explain the phone calls detailing how people were stabbed to death (which, by the way, I don't believe were fake)
My guess is the hijackers WERE intending to matyr themselves... or at least some of them were... but the planes were still remotely flown to ensure the accuracy.
Dewitt Roseborough ´looked up´ from where he was in south parking walkways and saw a plane. THEN described seeing a flash and explosion coming from ´the other side of the Pentagon´
Skarlett who has a blogsite described on September 14th 2001 that she ´could have swore´ she saw the plane ´pull up at the last minute´ from her positioning just in front of the ´impact site´.
Dave Statter´s now 404ed interviews with witnesses an hour after the attack who said the plane ´diverted´.
I don't see loose change as a textbook ... I actually disagree with alot of Dylan and Jason's theories. But operation northwoods is an example of them considering staging a terrorist attack as a pretext for war. Kennedy vetoed it. If Bush & Cheney were in power then they probably would have gone through with it.
The crash into the Pentagon was not a 'manuveur'. Hanjor, was not trying to take any particular path. He just wanted to hit the pentagon, and that was the path the plane took. You, like other truthers are trying to define one segement of an event as the whole event.
Since the plane hit the Pentagon, and Hanjour was flying and they were on a suicidal jihad. I'm going to imagine that was his goal (understanding that many believe the pentagon wasn't the initial target, but so be it)
Witnesses at your link: Gary Bauer proven by CIT that he could NOT see impact from his positioning. Benedetto: ´That plane is GOING to crash´ Did NOT see impact. Second hand testimony to boot. Donald Bouchoux: Actually describes NOC flightpath. Omar Campo: ´I FELT the impact´ Nuff said. Penny Elgas: ´The plane just appeared there- very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station´ NOC .
Have you even been to the Pentagon? I could see the ENTIRE south parking lot from vantage point. I could also see the southside of the building. The part that the CIT idiots claim the plane retreated towards. If the CIT story had any shread of truth the plane would have flown right over me.
I told you where I was. The GW parkway, near national airport. mapquest it.
Did you even listen to the interview with Roberts I linked you to? No mention of second planes right after the event. Don't you think would mention it?
The whole length of that road has the view obstructed by trees, hills and bridges. I´ve looked at all POVs and cannot see how you could see the plane´s approach.
You will have to send the coordinates to my YT mail.
Ok, if you think so. How exactly do I send you the coordinates.
I told you: Look at the GW parkway. Look at the area, just about at the end of the north side of the runway at national airport. That's where I was. I could see the Pentagon clear as day. And I saw the plane come in, go out of my line of site, and then a huge fireball. No flyover over the south parking lot. No stupid CIT theory. No conspiracy.
Aldo: I mean do you remember how many seconds it was when you heard the explosion and then saw that plane?
Roosevelt: From the time the explosion hit, 'til. . . I ran outside and saw- it's a loading dock, and you can run right out to the. . . look-out, and look off.
Fred Gaskins: ¨the Pentagon was the obvious target," NOT an impact witness. Afework Hagos: ¨I know this plane is going to crash¨ Did NOT see impact. Aydan Kizildrgli: "There was a big boom," Christopher Munsey: ´as it appeared to hit the side of the Pentagon´ and ´jetliner gliding almost noiselessly over the Navy Annex, fast, low and straight toward the Pentagon,´ NOC. That´s just the start. Will I go on?
´I saw flight 77 hit the Pentagon myself. Call me a liar. ´
And you come forward now?
Ummm...you´re a liar.
AND you say it was flight 77 yet other planes were switched? I´d say YOU are a disinfobot.
If you have checked CIT´s website you´ll know that there are 13 confirmed Northside witnesses and there are MANY more that CIT have not added because they have not confirmed it themselves though it is obvious through their recorded testimony.
´Why do CIT dopes just focus on the different assumptions of the flight path.´
Obviously you haven´t even bothered your arse to look at the evidence or you would see why. If the plane came in from the Northside it could NOT have done the damage OR hit the lightpoles.
Snoopysuited As a matter of interest where were you when the plane ´crashed´? Where did it approach from? What speed was it going? Did you see lightpoles being hit? Did you see the famous ´white plume´ of smoke coming from the wing as depicted in the gatecam? Did you hear it? Did you see Lloyd England´s cab being speared? Did it hit the lawn? Did you see it over the annex? Did you see it over the cemetary? Over Citgo? Just wondering.
One, My answers: -The GW parkway headed south -From my vantage point, the west -Very fast -No -Yes -Oh, yeah -I was not on that side of the building -see above -no -no -I could not see the citgo from my vantage point.
There is NO vantage point of the ´impact site´, there is no vantage point of the official south route, the view of the Pentagon is blocked by trees and roadsigns from the most southerly point (the ONLY point from which you can actually see the Pentagon)
You could ONLY have possibly seen a fireball. You could NOT have seen the low and level approach from the OTHER side of the Pentagon.
You saw a fireball OR you actually saw the plane NOC.
Um....exactly when did I lie? I said I saw a plane, I saw it crash into the building? I did not see the impact zone from my angle, but the plane did not up and fly away. Stop grasping at straws. I know your argument is flimsy, you don't have to try to save it with stupid retorts.
Fucking stupid. I.E. Fuck investigation, fuck collaborating witness accounts regarding the flight path, fuck truth - this needs to be palatable!
So if the airliner hit the pentagon - let's see the plane hitting the pentagon. Surely if the FBI is withholding 85 tapes of pentagon footage (except for one dubious pentagon shot and one from the gas station with a reversing time stamp - an impossibility without editing) of the plane hitting the pentagon its only a suspenseful ruse.
Easy ... U obviously don't understand the psyop... if they were really hiding something they would have probably faked a video by now ... after all if hollywood can add massive transforming robots to a scene, surely the pentagon could add a plane to a some CCTV. Yet they haven't ... they're witholding the proof not because they are hiding something ... but because they want u to think they are hiding something.
Ah good. So the government is NOT hiding something. They just want me to think they're hiding something. Wow. That's brilliant. You are a 'psyop' cracker extraordinaire.
What was that said earlier here?
'The scary implication of this video is 9-11 WASN'T AN INSIDE JOB'
Scootle is separating the wheat from the chaff. You are helping reinforce the conspiracy theorist label by jumping on board any illogical theory just because it goes against the official story. Our blog is linked at 911truth,911blogger, visibility911and countless 911 blogs. So you can think what you want, but we have earned our respect for our research.
cit is linked at infowars...i am thanked twice in the credits of loose change final cut....charlie sheen referenced cit & pilots for 911 truth research in his "20 questions for obama"....richard gage supports the research of cit.....so yeah i guess everyone is free to think what they want
I could not get this to post from my channel, this is 911debunkerschannel speaking though.
First off, I'm not playing who is the bigger truther, I'm defending that fact that we are truthers.
I work on projects for ae911truth, Gage does not support the flyover theory. Just like Peter Dale Scott does not support the flyover theory. And Alex Jones has always warned the Pentagon issue may be a PSYOP.
What do you propose CIT SHOULD have done with this explosive evidence??
´And Alex Jones has always warned the Pentagon issue may be a PSYOP´
The only psyop I can see are the vicious PROVEN lies uttered by people who have dedicated all their time attacking this PROVEN info than getting on with their own research.
How does this evidence affect ANY other aspect of truther research on the Pentagon?
"What do you propose CIT SHOULD have done with this explosive evidence??"
You didn't understand what I was saying, just stay tuned.
"You guys are getting desperate. Debunk the evidence or button it."
Search for CIT at our blog (linked on my page), I'm sure you won't be impressed, but people reading this can decide for themselves if they have been debunked.
Yeah Jones posts a lot of stuff, but as PP have stated themselves...
"Wary we are of the potential for the government to eventually release clear footage of the impact from the 84 other cameras that were dotted around the Pentagon and would have easily documented the event to debunk 9/11 skeptics."
No, you don't jump to conclusions that aren't warranted by the evidence. If it was so cut and dry, why present both sides as Loose Change and David Ray Griffin have done?
Thanks for this.
CTV911 2 months ago
they got evidence the official story is worng and instead of making that the main issue they make it all about a flyover, which they have no evidence for.
I dont get that with them
Neuromancer1943 4 months ago
0:24 - 0:25 wtf? Is that a person jumping ou the window ON FIRE?
jen0619 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CIT is 100% garbage.
citwatch . blogspot . com
bumblebee8banana 1 year ago
go to my vids and look for jeff hill things, i listened to all his phone calls and posted best parts .... his"witnesses" all lied
pt1gard 1 year ago
The physical facts don't lie. No 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11.
MrSammo1 1 year ago
@MrSammo1 It's funny that CIT and Barrett and Fetzer and Rodriguez all have to go overseas to get a stage--they can't get one in the USA.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney It's easier to wake up people overseas. There's more atheists.
MrSammo1 1 year ago
@MrSammo1 If you wake them up with lies they'll just get pissed off and go back to sleep.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney Physical evidence isn't lies. Either you understand physical reality and accept it or you believe in hearsay. America was brought up to falsely believe in the latter. This is why the shills like NatGeo never actually show the physical evidence to the public.
MrSammo1 1 year ago
@MrSammo1 I didn't say physical evidence is lies. What CIT, Barrett, Rodriguez, and Fetzer have in common is a lack of physical evidence.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney Not when you combine all their work with the observable evidence.
MrSammo1 1 year ago
@MrSammo1 When you look at the observable evidence of airplane debris at the Pentagon, witnesses who say the plane hit the Pentagon, lack of any credible flyover witnesses, complete lack of motivation for a flyover op, and CIT's record of persistent dishonesty, CIT lacks all credibility.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney There's no imprint of a jet on the precollapse wall. THAT'S the observable evidence.
Nothing else matters.
MrSammo1 1 year ago
@MrSammo1 Oh that big hole in the wall isn't an imprint? What is it then?
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney The after effects of an explosion not created by a 757 crash.
MrSammo1 1 year ago
@MrSammo1 That is total speculation. You have no evidence that is so. CIT's own witnesses claim the plane hit the building, and there is no witness at all that claims the plane flew over.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney ... watch my videos with Jeff hill in title, you dont have the facts .... he interviews some frauds who claim they were there, you decide on the truth
pt1gard 1 year ago
@pt1gard When CIT lies so blatantly and recklessly, that's all I need to know.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney ... so your point it that these gov stooge witnesses are lying yet you dont care?
pt1gard 1 year ago
@pt1gard I don't see how it matters 'cause we'll never get people in the mainstream to care. All that happens is that the whole controversy is enormously distracting and discrediting to the truth movement. After all these years CIT can't find one person who will say they saw a flyover plane. And they lie. I have no patience for people who lie about 9/11.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney ... ok so I was just curious what you believed, the official story or that 911 was based on lies ... either way its still interesting hearing these people lie to jeff, who doesnt call them out.
pt1gard 1 year ago
@pt1gard Jeff used to be a WTC no-planer, so I question his judgment. And apparently he recorded Albert Hemphill and posted the recording without Hemphill's permission. I don't have time for people who act like that.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney ... yeah i know all that but you didnt answer my question?
pt1gard 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney Sure there is. That's why the corporate media refuses to show it to the American public.
If there wasn't any physical evidence, there would be no problem.
MrSammo1 1 year ago
@MrSammo1 There is no physical evidence of flyover. There is no eyewitness evidence of flyover. The CITheads live in a fantasy world and make the truth movement look like a bunch of idiots.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@MrSammo1
yeah imagine that. dozens of peer reviewed articles in real journals reviewed by hundreds of experts in their fields are just passing BS. meanwhile the TM has 0. oh who to believe?
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek ...
grand, think the pole hit Lloyd going 50mph?
think sepulveda pulled out 2 terrorists and 2 pilots from the cock pit?
think elgas picked up part of the tail by accident and drove away 80mph trying to outrace the horror of it in her backseat? ....
go to my channel and hear their pathetic lies told over the phone and check back with reality.
pt1gard 1 year ago
@pt1gard
stop babbling and provide evidence. i have seen enough BS truther videos to keep wasting my time.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek In our monetary system paying people to lie is the norm. If my observational take on what really happened wasn't correct the physical facts would have been shown to the American public years ago.
They haven't because seeing them exposes the lie.
MrSammo1 1 year ago
@MrSammo1 ... ur right mrsammo, intel uses an admitted 60 billion a year for disinfo, they must take it seriously for that amount, eh?
pt1gard 1 year ago
@MrSammo1
well you asy so. so basically you are calling ppl liars w/o evidence. more excuses why truthers can't do what every other academic must do.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@MrSammo1
so basically we have now added a couple more thousand ppl to this now global conspiracy.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@MrSammo1
ROFL! yeah all that debris was in no way physical. it was magic!
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek I like to call it neocon magic.
MrSammo1 1 year ago
@MrSammo1
Well at least you admit its nothing based in reality.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
what scientific evidence? the "paper" by jones and company that avoided a rel peer review? funny, 2 labs were supposed to corroborate this research, 1 claims his samples were tampered with, and the other is silent. i wonder why? not to mention harrit has refused to provide samples for independent analysis on request.
in case you guys forgot no one has demonstrate that any for of thermtie can cut a steel column. in fact, every experiment failed.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek please google "911debunkers thermite denial a year in review" ... it will answer all your questions
ScootleRoyale 1 year ago
@ScootleRoyale
unless it provides a real peer review in a real journal i could care less what the new excuses are.
wait...just key word searched. not one mention or addressing the non peer review process. let us know when you guys can act like real academics. not to mention it in no way addresses what i posted.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
hey
i just made a video called The CIT Deception too - didn't mean to rip off your name. check it out if you want, let me know what you think.
brokenstyx 2 years ago
So I guess CIT's little soiree in Arlington was poorly attended and the threat that they might get more than fifteen minutes seems to be over. Agreed?
punxsutawneybarney 2 years ago
Perhaps. But, Pilotsfor911Truth CONTINUE to deceive people with their bullshit.
PersianPaladin 2 years ago 2
You know what is really funny Scootle? Me trying to use huge lists of people to prove that the number of people that claim to have seen the impact is well above 14. How many of those 14 say they saw the impact again?
911debunkerschannel 2 years ago
@911debunkerschannel
how many saw a missile, flyover, or anything other than a plane?
grandmastershek 1 year ago
dis info,
re you really going to tell me the people he talked to where paid,
he didn't claim anything the witnneses claimed everything,
he just tried to point out that there is a mystery to what happened.
TheElefaunt 2 years ago
are you telling me the HUNDRED PLUS FIRST RESPONDERS who are on record talking about picking up airline seats with burnt bodies still attached to them and removing 757 parts that were EMBEDDED IN COLUMNS (planting is one thing but embedding them in columns - I don't think so) are all lying?
Go to amazon, buy a book called "firefight: inside the battle to save the pentagon on 9/11"... read it, a hundred times if u have to, until it sinks in that the pentagon no plane stuff is disinfo.
ScootleRoyale 2 years ago
Is that the same book that mentions the 3 fake firefighters arrested?
That mentions firefighters describing what they said was a ´military guy´ who introduced himself AND HIS FRIENDS as PenRen ´go-betweens´ who the FBI said they wanted to question because he not only interfered with evidence but even the corpses at the crime scene?
He disappeared along with his friends.
Name the ´hundred plus responders´ who found all these airline seats with burnt bodies. Photos? Proof?
onesliceshort 2 years ago
I STILL cannot see where you could possibly see the plane from on that road. I´ve been up and down the whole dam road and there is NO vantage point.
Right click on the map where you were and press ´what is here´
This leaves a marker.
Email the map to yourself and it will send coordinates.
Then you can send it to my YT mail.
Cheers.
onesliceshort 2 years ago
One,
I lived in the DC area for ten years. I assure you, you can see the pentagon from the GW parkway.
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
All I can tell you is from the position given for kilometres up and down that stretch of road there is no place you can see the Pentagon.
Try yourself on the streetmap. Pull the yellow guy to where you are talking about.
I´m not being a dick or stubborn about it.
There is no clear viw for trees and hills.
onesliceshort 2 years ago
One,
No, you're not being stubborn. You're being arrogant. Like all no planers and CIT freaks, you are telling people that they saw something other than what they actually saw.
I took that drive every day for five straight years. I know what can and can't be seen from that stretch of highway. And on 9/11 I absolutely know that you can see the pentagon (and unfrotunately) things crashing into it.
Maybe you need to make another trip down to DC and reasses what you think you know.
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
Arrogant?
No mate. I didn´t say I believed you didn´t see a plane and am genuinely trying to find your POV.
What cannot have happened is that the plane flew NoC AND impacted. It can´t happen.
The guy who made this bs video claimed Aldo and Craig (CIT heads) ´always had to be in the right´ or arrogant.
Believe me they act the same with ALL including people like me who support their findings.
They are very straight and won´t include findings until they can confirm it themselves.
onesliceshort 2 years ago
One,
You're being arrogant. I am telling you what I saw and you make the comment --All I can tell you is from the position given for kilometres up and down that stretch of road there is no place you can see the Pentagon.--
You are telling me what I saw. How is that not arrogant?
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
You told me you saw the plane crash, then you admit you didn´t.
I´ve checked where you said you saw the plane from and can´t see ANY possible stretch of that road where a view is possible.
That´s all I´ve said.
onesliceshort 2 years ago
One,
I saw the plane crash. What I said is I did not see the impact zone. It was out of view.
If you see someone punch a guy, but you didn't see the cheek that was punched, does that mean the punch didn't happen?
This pathetic grasping at straws is why no one takes CIT seriously.
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
That´s a bullshit analogy.
You were on the other side of the Pentagon allegedly in a position to see the explosion/fireball from a moving bus, looking backwards?
You did not actually see a plane crash into the building.
You are STILL avoiding the NoC witnesses.
Explain how what they saw was wrong.
How could they be so far off the mark??
onesliceshort 2 years ago
One,
CIT interviewed people year's after the event. Memory gets sketcy.
I linked you to a collection of about a hundred people who saw the plane crash into the pentagon. The sources are within weeks of the event. How did they get it wrong?
Why do CIT freaks accept their 13 witness but not the hundreds of other witness, plane wreckage, DNA findings, first reponders reports, ect. Because they are arrogant kooks.
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
The NoC witnesses were ALSO interviewed in the weeks after the event.
Your witnesses again:
Deb Analuf :
"Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon. It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon)¨
That is across the navy annex. Straight. She saw a fireball.
Ralph Banton:
on a house porch more than a mile away from the Pentagon.
"It sounded like it was jetting instead of slowing down." What the hell did he witness??
onesliceshort 2 years ago
One,
Show me a CIT interview that occured weeks after the event.
You're doing what CIT freaks do. Looking through hundreds of eyewitnesses and cherry picking a few that support your claim. Or seem to odd for you to accept.
Understand that eyewitnesses will not always absorb everything that is going on. They will missinterpret what they have just seen. And over time things will blur or be retold differently in one's mind.
cont.
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
Again???
Show me the ´hundreds of witnesses´ who saw the ´impact´
How the hell have they cherrypicked the 5 ANC workers who all corraborate?
The 2 Pentagon cops?
Robert Turcios?
The first lightpole downed makes the trajectory of the plane in the official story as very defined to one path.
The plane CANNOT deviate from this path.
It has been proven to be waaay off over and over.
Northside means no impact. End of story.
Trecherous scumbag (seeing we have entered that level of debate)
onesliceshort 2 years ago
One,
Besides CITs 13 witnesses. What other evidence of the North of Citgo theory do you have?
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
One,
You have also yet to show me one of the CIT witnesses who also saw a flyover.
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
cont.
But all told, every witness still accepts that a plane hit the pentagon.
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
David Battle:
"It was coming down head first," he said. "And when the impact hit, the cars and everything were just shaking."
There was no divebomb manouvre. He says ´when the plane hit´. He didn´t SEE it hit.
Gary Bauer:
Could NOT see impact from where he was. CIT have photos of his location.
Sean Boger
CIT interviewed him and he saw the plane approach from the right of Citgo (facing him) He was in the helicopter tower for God´s sake. Waaay off from the lightpoles.
onesliceshort 2 years ago
Steve Anderson
Allegedly watching out the 19th floor window during a fire alarm set off 1 minute before the attack. He was 2 miles away.
He said he saw it hit the lawn.
The plane allegedly flew southside, low and level. His entire view is blocked until the plane reaches the highway. How the hell did he know the exact 2 seconds to watch?
He said he saw it treetop level. He had to have seen it Northside to view this.
onesliceshort 2 years ago
One,
You are being arrogant again. Telling people what they saw just because it doesn't agree with your kookery.
You're review of the witnesses is far from scientific so far.
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
The people´s testimony tells me what they saw.
How the media translated it.
How you cherrypick it and deny testimony that doesn´t fit your bs official crap.
Get back to me when you explain the NoC testimony. Not before.
I´ve wasted a whole night entertaining an idiot.
onesliceshort 2 years ago
One,
I already explained the NoC testimony. Eyewitnesses memories get fuzzy. Plain and simple.
You have yet to show me a CIT interview that was done even within one year of the event.
You have yet to show me a CIT witness who testifies to seeing a fly over.
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
I haven´t even started on the FDR/RADES data fraud.
PROVEN.
Or will you ignore this evidence too?
Let´s rely on the word of an organisation that has been caught lying from day one. Is that what you are asking me?
onesliceshort 2 years ago
The FDR data contradicts the official story but also contradicts the only possible alternative theory ... a flyover... its last reading was 400 feet above the pentagon ... 400 feet ... thats some flyover! Not exactly flying into an explosion like CIT claim is it?
ScootleRoyale 2 years ago
Capeboy
Have you looked at Pilotsfor911truth´s interpretation of the FDR readings?
It was an obvious faked reading to exactly follow the official flight path.
It alligned exactly with the RADES data.
They fucked up on two fronts.
The altimeter reading was 288ft above the impact hole 2 seconds before ´impact´. (Not 400, do your research)
The descent rate would have to be 8640 feet per second.
The data was forged. Full stop.
You are using forged data to argue your point.
onesliceshort 2 years ago
One,
You're telling me I deny testimony!? Wow!
I tell you what. How about we both not use eyewitness testimony and use other sources to prove our point. Are you willing to do that? I am.
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
´You have also yet to show me one of the CIT witnesses who also saw a flyover´
???.....
Have you even bothered your arse to read my posts?
Scroll back. I´m not repeating it.
onesliceshort 2 years ago
One,
You interpret what people say to mean what you want it to. Not one person, NOT ONE says, 'I saw the plane fly over the pentagon and drop a bomb/missle (or whatever)'.
And I've already said, remember what side of CITGO the plane flew is obviously very hard, since witnesses give differing oppions, and you only latch on to those that support your theory.
I challenge you again. Let's use other sources besides eyewtinesses to prove our theories. You willing?
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
....by the FBI, NTSB or FAA..no records would have been generated responsive to your request for documents revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from the aircraft used during the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant (with the aid of the National Transportation Safety Board), as belonging to the said aircraft, presumably though the use of unique serial number identifying information contained by the said aircraft wreckage.¨
onesliceshort 2 years ago
¨You interpret what people say to mean what you want it to´
The NoC witnesses are on record, clear as day stating what they saw.
You claim that there are ´hundreds of impact witnesses´
IMPACT being the important word.
All you have given is links to people who were in the vicinity who, FELT, HEARD or saw a fireball/explosion.
You want the flyover witnesses I have already given you twice to actually say the words ´I saw a flyover´??
Explain how the NoC witnesses were wrong (6th time)
onesliceshort 2 years ago
One,
Yes, I want one of your witnesses to say, to some degree, --I saw the plane fly over the pentagon--. Bonus if they say something along the lines of, -the plane dropped something into the building.--
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
¨Bonus if they say, to some degree --I saw the plane dropped something into the building¨
What?
Did I say that a bomb was dropped into the building from the plane?? NO.
Roosevelt Roberts admitted seeing a plane in south parking seconds after the explosion flying 50-100ft agl.
If that wasn´t the flyover plane what was it?
Dewitt Roseborough describes the same scenario from the same area. What plane was that?
Why did Maria de la Cerda think the plane ´hit on top´?
contd...
onesliceshort 2 years ago
How about Turcios who saw the plane fly Northside over his head, fly straight towards the Pentagon and actually ´lift up´ to avoid a roadsign?
Penny Elgas saw it over the Citgo.
Levi Stephens was beside the lightpoles yet saw the plane on ´the right´ of the Citgo.
Sean Boger saw it ´to the right of Citgo´ facing him. (How the hell would that memory not stick?)
Deb Analauf saw it from her hotel window behind the Annex going straight towards the Pentagon. See the pattern?
NORTHSIDE.
onesliceshort 2 years ago
One,
Quick tangent question for you....
All the plane parts that were recovered in the pentagon.....the luggage....the bodies....
What's your story as to why they where there or how they got there?
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
Fuck that man. There is no debate with you.
You have not debunked or answered ANYTHING I say.
THAT is typical duhbunker tactics. Act stupid and change the subject away from something that you cannot explain.
You KNOW this can´t be bullshitted away and you decide to insult ME?
Fuck you. Traitor.
Later.
onesliceshort 2 years ago
One,
I'm not insulting you. You're theories are baseless and insane. You take some eyewitness accounts that support a preconcieved theory, instead of trying to prove your theory. Why do you ignore the physical evidence in the Pentagon? Why do you ignore the witnesses (including some CIT witnesses) who saw the plane hit the penatgon?
There is no debate, because there are no materials to debate. You are misintepreting evidence, not presenting evidence.
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
Memories are fuzzy with the NoC witnesses?
How much detail is required to remember a simple detail as to which side of the gas station they saw the plane on?
A simple matter of left or right.
Or the 5 ANC workers who had the BEST positioning to see the initial approach coming over the Navy Annex on the right hand side facing them.
The 2 Pentagon cops who saw the plane on the Northside and the reason they are 100% sure is that if it had been on southside they would not have seen it??
onesliceshort 2 years ago
´How about we both not use eyewitness testimony and use other sources to prove our point´
So you admit this evidence can´t be debunked? Good.
Physical evidence?
Have you any documented evidence of FBI records on the plane parts?
No. Because the FBI in an FOIA said that they ´took it for granted´ that it was flight 77 and kept no records.
The ASCE report?
Duhbunkers don´t even quote from it because it has been proven to be flawed.
onesliceshort 2 years ago
One,
The plane parts in the pentagon were connected to flight 77 through identification marking (serial numbers, ect)
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigations Records/Information Dissemination Section:
¨¨The Record/Information Dissemination Section (RIDS) again conducted a search for potentially responsive records....After this extensive research, RIDS has been unable to locate any FBI records responsive to your request. RIDS search efforts included verification by the responsible FBIHQ operational division that because the identity of the three hijacked aircraft has never been in question....contd
onesliceshort 2 years ago
....remembering that de la Cerda could only see the top floor of the Pentagon.
Why were people yelling that a plane had dropped a bomb ´and flew over´ according to Eric Dihle? Remember this was in the immediate aftermath and 45 minutes after news had filtered through of the plane attacks on the towers. Why say a plane had dropped a bomb?
Because people MUST have seen the plane fly over.
Why did Statter´s witnesses claim that the plane ´tried to divert at the last minute´?
onesliceshort 2 years ago
One,
Provide sources/links to these quotes.
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
Links have been sent to your mail.
You can read all relevant FOIAs.
Plane parts identification - there is none.
DNA identification - withheld
Airphones on Flight 77 - withheld
Look at the answers given by NTSB and FBI on all of the evidence relative to the Pentagon attack.
And detractors STILL use this as a counter argument against corraborrated witness testimony.
It is the only evidence we as outside observers have to disseminate from.
onesliceshort 2 years ago
One,
I was asking you for links (primary sources) to your witnesses' quotes.
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
Watch ´National Security Alert - sensitive information´
WATCH their interviews. Then tell me it is manipulated ´kookery´.
Links are given too.
onesliceshort 2 years ago
One,
I'm not watching two hours of kookery. Just provide me with the quotes of the people you feel say that fligt 77 flew over the pentagon. If they are in that video tell me at what point in the film they are.
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
Watch the video.
I´m not going to go through the video for you.
Truth scare you or what?
onesliceshort 2 years ago
One,
I'm not doing your research for you. Show me the witnesses who saw a fly over, or admit that you have no witnesses that support your kooky theory.
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
Wtf are you blabbering on about??
I have all my research here.
You have been arguing with me for 3 days about this evidence and called it ´kooky´ and you don´t even know what it is??
Pathetic. You know where to look. Go to CIT´s site and/or watch the video before you write more crap down on a subject you know nothing about.
Incredible man...just fuckin incredible.
onesliceshort 2 years ago
One,
Ok, I'll just cut to the chase since you aren't getting to it. NO ONE saw a fly over. Not one person. Every witness who saw the plane saw it hit the pentagon. North of Citgo ect ect, means nothing. The fact is, a plane hit the Pentagon, and no eye witness testimony getting the flight path wrong is going to change that.
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
You are an idiot Snoopy.
If I showed you the Pentagon flyover on video you still wouldn´t believe it.
That means you are one of a few things
a) Really dumb if you haven´t followed my posts.
b) Hate anybody who attacks the official story, no matter what the truth of the matter is.
c) both
´ Every witness who saw the plane saw it hit the pentagon´
That sentence sums you up. Dumb AND a liar.
Should have known from your first lie not to bother with you.
Bye. Ignored.
onesliceshort 2 years ago
One,
The plane didn't fly over the pentagon. And no witnesses would say that it did.
And yes, every witness who saw the plane saw it (and would say that they saw it) hit the pentagon.
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
Also check out sequestered 911 calls made that day in the Washington/Arlington area.
They have been withheld, even now, years after the same calls made in Manhattan are readily available.
Why is that?
We have in no way had ALL witness testimony that day.
onesliceshort 2 years ago
DNA evidence?
70 % of body PARTS (not victims) were found prior to the 21st..
Surprise surprise when the FBI took over the DNA recovery the remaining fragments were discovered and identified.
AGAIN no records disclosed.
Gatecam footage? Pfffff.
NOBODY saw this trajectory.
NOBODY saw the white plume of smoke.
There are STILL 84 tapes undisclosed.
Lloyd England?
Do I have to even talk about this insane comic strip story??
onesliceshort 2 years ago
´CIT freaks´?
Why debase the conversation with insults?
These ´freaks´ and their evidence is commended by high ranking ex USAF commanders and ex and present Aircraft crash investigation unit presidents.
They are backed by pilots and academics from all walks of life.
Who are you to call all these people freaks?
I don´t ´think´ I know. I have surveyed all the evidence and there is no getting round it.
NOBODY here has even TRIED to debunk the NoC witnesses.
onesliceshort 2 years ago
One,
The CIT freaks are freaks, because, like you, they are arrogant assholes. They tell people what they saw, but dismiss witness testimony when it contradicts what they want to believe.
The reason no one will debate the CIT boys is because there is nothing to debate. They take 13 people (out of hundreds) and take a little bit of their testimony to create a situation that did not occur.
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
Snoopy
You tried to counterargue the NoC witnesses by giving me a link to ´impact witnesses´
I went through the witnesses and found that they didn´t see an impact OR saw the plane NoC, which means they COULD not have seen an impact.
The only people guilty of putting words in these people´s mouths or assuming what they meant were the media and investigators at the scene.
onesliceshort 2 years ago
One,
Here you go, more flight 77 witnesses:
geocities*com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses*htm
Tell me why these people didn't see what they saw.
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
I was just there on a bus trip, not sure what highway I was on to be honest, but I had a very clear view.
911debunkerschannel 2 years ago
How has this video debunked ANYTHING that CIT have disclosed?
Are all those witnesses wrong? Please don´t quote the ´100 witnesses to an impact´ bullcrap because your argument will be torn to shreds if you do. There are MORE confirmed and verified Northside witnesses that corraborate than so called ´impact witnesses´.
CIT´s work along with P4911T have PROVEN FDR/RADES data to be a fraud.
None of this evidence is detrimental to any other evidence mentioned here.
onesliceshort 2 years ago
Well since I know the towers were demolished I know the operation had to be perfect... thats why the planes had to have been remote controlled... they would have had to have taken every possible step to make sure nothing would go wrong with the operation ... the pentagon no plane hypothesise are all too messy... it would have been too much of a risk for them to fake a plane crash when they could just crash the plane.
ScootleRoyale 2 years ago
Scootle,
Why would the planes have to have been remote controlled? And if they were, was flight 11, 175, 77 and 93 what was crashed, or are you a proponent of the plane switch theory?
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
well for one thing it took experienced pilots about 10 attempts to hit the WTC in a simulator at the reported speeds. Secondly, if it was an inside job, which it was, theres no way they would leave it to humans.
ScootleRoyale 2 years ago
Scootle,
--Well for one thing it took experienced pilots about 10 attempts to hit the WTC--
Souce please.
--Secondly, if it was an inside job....they would not leave it to humans.--
Who controlled the remote controls?
And you didn't answer my question. Do you beleive in the plane switch theory?
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
One,
--There are more confirmed and verified northside witness that corraborate than so called 'impact witnesses'--
Prove this. Show your evidence.
I saw flight 77 hit the Pentagon myself. Call me a liar.
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
I dont have an oppinion either way ... theres no real evidence to suggest the planes were switched... just conjecture based on operation northwoods... but in operation northwoods the switch was to so that noone would die... on 9/11 people obviously did die so there's no point of them switching.
Since the DNA of the hijackers and the DNA of most of the passengers were found at the crime scenes, I'd say the planes probably were the ones they said.
ScootleRoyale 2 years ago
Scootle,
Ok, so fair enough. Do mention hijackers...do you think that there were arabs involved, but they were pawns (or some similar situation)? Moreover, whas there a 'hijacking' of any kind?
I ask, only because it helps to know what are you arguing before actually debating the argument.
By the way. Operation Northwoods never happened, and the person who thought of it was forced to resign. that event has nothing to do with 9/11. Loose change is not a text book.
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
The arabs were on the plane ... they are dead... It's possible that they may have simply been actors believing to be taking part in a hijack drill... altho that doesn't explain the phone calls detailing how people were stabbed to death (which, by the way, I don't believe were fake)
My guess is the hijackers WERE intending to matyr themselves... or at least some of them were... but the planes were still remotely flown to ensure the accuracy.
ScootleRoyale 2 years ago
Scootle,
Why?
Your storyline is retarded. The hijackers were going to take over, but just in case the government was in control?
Do you just hate the government and want a story to beleive in that makes them look bad?
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
Your link to ´impact witnesses´
The people I have mentioned so far either did NOT see an impact OR they saw it fly North of Citgo.
Facts.
Im still waiting on facts from you. Counter the testimony of the Northside witnesses.
Even ScootleRoyale hasn´t the balls to do it because he knows he can´t.
That´s why he has ignored all my points so far?
onesliceshort 2 years ago
One,
Here's my counter to the northside witnesses. Show me one of those witnesses say "the plane flew over the pentagon"
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
Roosevelt Roberts :
Saw a ´commercial jet´in south parking at ´50-100 feet agl´ ´after the explosion hit´
LoC records and confirmed by CIT.
He described it as ´another plane´
Maria De La Cerda:
Said that she thought the plane ´hit on top´ or that it ´hit the other side´
She saw the plane from the cemetary. Her positioning makes her only able to see the TOP FLOORS of the Pentagon.
Eric Dihle quoted as saying people were yelling that ´a bomb had hit and a plane flew over´
onesliceshort 2 years ago
One,
Here's an interview with Roberts right after 9/11 where he DOES NOT support a fly over theory:
memory*loc*gov/cgi-bin/query/S?ammem/afc911bib:@filreq(@field(TITLE+@od1(Interview+with+Roosevelt+Roberts+Jr+,+Waldorf,+Maryland,+November+30,+2001))+@field(RESOURCETYPE+@od1(sound_recording)))
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
Dewitt Roseborough ´looked up´ from where he was in south parking walkways and saw a plane. THEN described seeing a flash and explosion coming from ´the other side of the Pentagon´
Skarlett who has a blogsite described on September 14th 2001 that she ´could have swore´ she saw the plane ´pull up at the last minute´ from her positioning just in front of the ´impact site´.
Dave Statter´s now 404ed interviews with witnesses an hour after the attack who said the plane ´diverted´.
onesliceshort 2 years ago
CIT has tried to contact all of them.
Maria de la Cerda sticks by her story as does Roosevelt Roberts.
Dewitt Roseborough ´appreciates´ what CIT are doing but wants no further part. Scared shitless.
Eric Dihle says he can´t remember saying that but it was caught on tape.
Add to this the NoC witnesses a list which continues to grow and the ´impact witnesses´ which is dwindling.
Add to that the proven forgery of FDR/RADES data.
It´s up to YOU to prove to ME that a plane impacted.
onesliceshort 2 years ago
I don't see loose change as a textbook ... I actually disagree with alot of Dylan and Jason's theories. But operation northwoods is an example of them considering staging a terrorist attack as a pretext for war. Kennedy vetoed it. If Bush & Cheney were in power then they probably would have gone through with it.
ScootleRoyale 2 years ago
¨it took experienced pilots 10 attempts to hit the WTC in a simulator at the reported speeds.´
Please don´t tell me that you believe the Pentagon manouevre was EASIER than hitting the towers. Please.
The DNA?
Prove it.
I certainly don´t believe the word of an organisation with a proven track record of deceit the whole way through this saga.
´The pentagon no plane hypothesise are all too messy´
The truth is the truth.
And since when have CIT said there was no plane??
onesliceshort 2 years ago
One,
The crash into the Pentagon was not a 'manuveur'. Hanjor, was not trying to take any particular path. He just wanted to hit the pentagon, and that was the path the plane took. You, like other truthers are trying to define one segement of an event as the whole event.
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
How do you know what was on Hanjour had intended to do??
The point in question is if he actually had the skills to make this manouevre.
Or was this just another piece of luck that these ´Arabs´had that day?
The Northside approach makes the point moot anyway. NOC = NO IMPACT.
Nice lazy link to witnesses btw.
I´ll be back on that.
onesliceshort 2 years ago
One,
Since the plane hit the Pentagon, and Hanjour was flying and they were on a suicidal jihad. I'm going to imagine that was his goal (understanding that many believe the pentagon wasn't the initial target, but so be it)
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
onesliceshort 2 years ago
One,
How does your break down of mine, or any other witnesses testimony help your argument exactly?
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
´I saw flight 77 hit the Pentagon myself. Call me a liar.´
Your words not mine.
´I assure you I saw the plane. I did not see the impact.´
Again your words not mine.
How could you have seen the flyover if it went towards the South Parking lot?
You can just about see the Northside of the Pentagon from your vantage point.
You weren´t focussed on the huge fireball??
onesliceshort 2 years ago
One,
Have you even been to the Pentagon? I could see the ENTIRE south parking lot from vantage point. I could also see the southside of the building. The part that the CIT idiots claim the plane retreated towards. If the CIT story had any shread of truth the plane would have flown right over me.
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
You could see the entire south parking lot but you could not see the ´impact point´
Explain that please.
How would the plane have flown right over you from where you were positioned??
onesliceshort 2 years ago
One,
Look at a map again. I was on the GW parkway, near national airport. I could see the south side of the pentagon and the south parking lot.
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
Give me the coordinates.
I´ve been up and down the roads there and can´t see what you said you saw.
I hope you´re not picking and choosing spots now to suit your story.
You are still a Northside witness if you claim to have seen the plane.
onesliceshort 2 years ago
One,
I'm a northside witness? How so?
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
Roosevelt Roberts is on record in his LoC testimony and again in an interview with CIT talking about a ´second plane´
CIt went into major detail questioning him one on one.
He saw a ´commercial jet´ ´50-100feet agl´in south parking ´after the explosion hit´
End of. Verified testimony.
You´ll have to tell me at least the name of the street you were on or were you on Rte 110?
onesliceshort 2 years ago
One,
I told you where I was. The GW parkway, near national airport. mapquest it.
Did you even listen to the interview with Roberts I linked you to? No mention of second planes right after the event. Don't you think would mention it?
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
Okay gotcha.
The whole length of that road has the view obstructed by trees, hills and bridges. I´ve looked at all POVs and cannot see how you could see the plane´s approach.
You will have to send the coordinates to my YT mail.
onesliceshort 2 years ago
One,
Ok, if you think so. How exactly do I send you the coordinates.
I told you: Look at the GW parkway. Look at the area, just about at the end of the north side of the runway at national airport. That's where I was. I could see the Pentagon clear as day. And I saw the plane come in, go out of my line of site, and then a huge fireball. No flyover over the south parking lot. No stupid CIT theory. No conspiracy.
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
Aldo: I mean do you remember how many seconds it was when you heard the explosion and then saw that plane?
Roosevelt: From the time the explosion hit, 'til. . . I ran outside and saw- it's a loading dock, and you can run right out to the. . . look-out, and look off.
onesliceshort 2 years ago
Aldo: So you- you heard the explosion and ten seconds later you were outside and you were able to see that plane?
Roosevelt: Correct. You could see that plane just as clear as day. Couldn't miss it.
Got it?
onesliceshort 2 years ago
One,
So you didn't listen to the link I gave you, I take it.
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
I listened to the link.
Roberts says
¨The plane hit...I ran outside to the loading dock and I looked up and I see another plane flying around the south parking lot¨
The link you sent me had this part editted out of the original. I´ll send you the real link.
onesliceshort 2 years ago
Snoopy
Do you even KNOW what the Northside testimony entails?
How it makes a nonsense of the official story?
Check the evidence at CIT´s site before you comment eh?
onesliceshort 2 years ago
onesliceshort 2 years ago
´I saw flight 77 hit the Pentagon myself. Call me a liar. ´
And you come forward now?
Ummm...you´re a liar.
AND you say it was flight 77 yet other planes were switched? I´d say YOU are a disinfobot.
If you have checked CIT´s website you´ll know that there are 13 confirmed Northside witnesses and there are MANY more that CIT have not added because they have not confirmed it themselves though it is obvious through their recorded testimony.
Impact witnesses?
YOU name them.
onesliceshort 2 years ago
One,
You're not paying attention. I was asking scootle if HE thought planes were switched.
I'm not coming forward. Why would I have to 'come forward'? There's plenty of people who saw flight 77 hit the pentagon.
All 13 people (and hundreds more) saw flight 77 hit the pentagon. Why do CIT dopes just focus on the different assumptions of the flight path.
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
Name the ´impact witnesses´ please.
´Why do CIT dopes just focus on the different assumptions of the flight path.´
Obviously you haven´t even bothered your arse to look at the evidence or you would see why. If the plane came in from the Northside it could NOT have done the damage OR hit the lightpoles.
onesliceshort 2 years ago
Again with the ´hundreds´ of impact witnesses lie.
Name them.
onesliceshort 2 years ago
One,
Here's a list of witnesses for flight 77:
debunk911myths*org/topics/Pentagon_witnesses
flight77*info/witnesses*html
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
onesliceshort 2 years ago
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
GW Parkway heading south?
There is NO vantage point of the ´impact site´, there is no vantage point of the official south route, the view of the Pentagon is blocked by trees and roadsigns from the most southerly point (the ONLY point from which you can actually see the Pentagon)
You could ONLY have possibly seen a fireball. You could NOT have seen the low and level approach from the OTHER side of the Pentagon.
You saw a fireball OR you actually saw the plane NOC.
Nice one.
onesliceshort 2 years ago
one,
I assure you I saw the plane. I did not see the impact, but I definately didn't see any flyover like you claim.
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
You just said that you saw the plane crash.
So you lied. Okay, thanks for admitting that at least.
onesliceshort 2 years ago
One,
Um....exactly when did I lie? I said I saw a plane, I saw it crash into the building? I did not see the impact zone from my angle, but the plane did not up and fly away. Stop grasping at straws. I know your argument is flimsy, you don't have to try to save it with stupid retorts.
SnoopySuited 2 years ago
Fucking stupid. I.E. Fuck investigation, fuck collaborating witness accounts regarding the flight path, fuck truth - this needs to be palatable!
So if the airliner hit the pentagon - let's see the plane hitting the pentagon. Surely if the FBI is withholding 85 tapes of pentagon footage (except for one dubious pentagon shot and one from the gas station with a reversing time stamp - an impossibility without editing) of the plane hitting the pentagon its only a suspenseful ruse.
Lies.
ayebretwalda 2 years ago 3
Easy ... U obviously don't understand the psyop... if they were really hiding something they would have probably faked a video by now ... after all if hollywood can add massive transforming robots to a scene, surely the pentagon could add a plane to a some CCTV. Yet they haven't ... they're witholding the proof not because they are hiding something ... but because they want u to think they are hiding something.
ScootleRoyale 2 years ago
Ah good. So the government is NOT hiding something. They just want me to think they're hiding something. Wow. That's brilliant. You are a 'psyop' cracker extraordinaire.
What was that said earlier here?
'The scary implication of this video is 9-11 WASN'T AN INSIDE JOB'
...Well said.
ayebretwalda 2 years ago
Go to Arlington and tell the hundreds of firefighters who picked up pieces of luggage, seats and little girls that a plane didnt hit.
ScootleRoyale 2 years ago
hey scootle.....
"nice cape" you're wearing. is that just how you further mock us truthers?
show us all the pictures of luggage and seats and little girls or admit you lie.
do you think the fdny that dont come forward about the wtc are traitors or do you think the ones who call 911 truthers are the only real firefighters?
remember when i showed you that pentagon firefighters supported cit's work?
you're a fool wearing a cape mocking the 911 truth movement who daily visits jref & slc
~dom
Terrorcell2 2 years ago
Scootle is separating the wheat from the chaff. You are helping reinforce the conspiracy theorist label by jumping on board any illogical theory just because it goes against the official story. Our blog is linked at 911truth,911blogger, visibility911and countless 911 blogs. So you can think what you want, but we have earned our respect for our research.
911debunkerschannel 2 years ago
cit is linked at infowars...i am thanked twice in the credits of loose change final cut....charlie sheen referenced cit & pilots for 911 truth research in his "20 questions for obama"....richard gage supports the research of cit.....so yeah i guess everyone is free to think what they want
Terrorcell2 2 years ago
I could not get this to post from my channel, this is 911debunkerschannel speaking though.
First off, I'm not playing who is the bigger truther, I'm defending that fact that we are truthers.
I work on projects for ae911truth, Gage does not support the flyover theory. Just like Peter Dale Scott does not support the flyover theory. And Alex Jones has always warned the Pentagon issue may be a PSYOP.
Visibility911 2 years ago
"defending THE fact"
And yes, everyone is free to think what they want, including witnesses who are upset with CIT, stay tuned.
Visibility911 2 years ago
´witnesses are upset with CIT´
What do you propose CIT SHOULD have done with this explosive evidence??
´And Alex Jones has always warned the Pentagon issue may be a PSYOP´
The only psyop I can see are the vicious PROVEN lies uttered by people who have dedicated all their time attacking this PROVEN info than getting on with their own research.
How does this evidence affect ANY other aspect of truther research on the Pentagon?
It doesn´t.
THAT is strange.
onesliceshort 2 years ago
"What do you propose CIT SHOULD have done with this explosive evidence??"
You didn't understand what I was saying, just stay tuned.
"You guys are getting desperate. Debunk the evidence or button it."
Search for CIT at our blog (linked on my page), I'm sure you won't be impressed, but people reading this can decide for themselves if they have been debunked.
911debunkerschannel 2 years ago
Oh, and btw, Jones has shown this video on his channel.
You guys are getting desperate. Debunk the evidence or button it.
onesliceshort 2 years ago
Yeah Jones posts a lot of stuff, but as PP have stated themselves...
"Wary we are of the potential for the government to eventually release clear footage of the impact from the 84 other cameras that were dotted around the Pentagon and would have easily documented the event to debunk 9/11 skeptics."
911debunkerschannel 2 years ago
So we just sit on this and ignore it because of this POSSIBLE scenario??
They haven´t shown any video because they haven´t got any ´impact´ clips.
Impact is impossible NOC.
Impossible.
onesliceshort 2 years ago
No, you don't jump to conclusions that aren't warranted by the evidence. If it was so cut and dry, why present both sides as Loose Change and David Ray Griffin have done?
911debunkerschannel 2 years ago
´you don't jump to conclusions that aren't warranted by the evidence.´
What other outcome can be reached when the plane flew NOC?
I never jumped on the bandwagon as you suggest.
I´ve followed this evidence for years before opening my mouth about it.
2 witnesses in ´06...mmm...Okay.
4 witnesses.....huh?
14 witnesses...wtf?
Then there are NOC witnesses that either describe NOC or completely at odds with the official story.
You base YOUR counterargument on an FBI controlled scene...
onesliceshort 2 years ago