My advice to conspiracy theorists

You know that I've posted this video before.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKbT9r-6IPQ

We truthers have to keep coming back and posting the same thing over and over to keep you pro-official version people from burying it.

I didn't say I was sure it had been emptied. I said it was plausible that it had been emptied. If the planes had already hit the towers and the mall was close to an airport, it would have given the government a reason to block off the parking lot and close the mall. Tell us why you think this is implausible.

The people were used to seeing airliners coming in for landings. It's plausible that they didn't see the smoke from the explosion until the 757 that flew over the Pentagon had already landed. Anyway, the press is controlled. This post is from another topic but there are some articles and videos about the media in it.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4731597&postcount=1087

Anybody who might have seen the 757 fly over the Pentagon and tried to report it, wouldn't have had any success; the press wouldn't have done the story.

There are witnesses who back both versions. Some say they saw a 757 hit the Pentagon and some say it was a smaller craft. Witnesses can be planted so the only thing we should seriously consider is the physical evidence. At the top of this post there's some physical evidence that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144746

There are plausible explanations for why we don't read that people saw a 757 flying behind the Pentagon after the explosion and our not knowing exactly who saw what doesn't make the physical evidence that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon go away.

 

Nobody bought it the first couple dozen times you posted it. What makes you think this time is any different?

Because there is absolutely no record of them doing such a thing. You would think SOMEONE SOMEWHERE would have mentioned that major little fact and you truthers would be ALL OVER it. You would be whining that "they closed the mall, why didn't they evacuate the Pentagon?" You don't close an outdoor attraction that draws tens of thousands of people each day and not expect someone to mention it.

But if it WASN'T closed, how do you explain the fact Flight 77 was never seen on the other side of the Pentagon?

Not at full throttle a couple hundred feet off the ground and heading AWAY from the airport. I use to work in the flight path of O'Hare in Chicago. If I saw a plane going 90 degrees from where it should have been going, it would have caught my attention. Full throttle and a couple hundred feet off the ground? I would have been calling it i

Convenient excuses, but all bull(*)(*)(*)(*). It wouldn't matter that they didn't see the smoke. You don't see a plane going full throttle over your head and not go WTF!!!! You're trying to convince us that of the thousands to tens of thousands of people outside on the other side of the Pentagon, not ONE of them put two and two together and back you up? PLEASE! Give us some credit here. We're not brain dead truthers who will swallow any flight of fancy simply because some truther says it is "plausible", yet has zero evidence to back it up.

And the very fact you are posting this proves that the media is a non issue when it comes to getting the word out.

Who says they would need the press? Go to Alex Jones. Go to indymedia. Go to David Ray Griffin. You can't silence that many people. I know it. You know it. You just don't want to admit it.

No, there are no witnesses that say the 757 flew OVER the Pentagon and there are NO witnesses of any kind from the other side of the Pentagon.

Yet you blatantly ignore all the physical evidence as well. There is no winning with truthers. They have an excuse for EVERYTHING!

No. There isn't. It is your same old bull(*)(*)(*)(*) spamfest. It is all based on your OPINION, not evidence, and we've all seen just how much your opinion is wor

No. There are no plausible explanations. Don't you remember the list of places the 757 would have flown over? You ran away with your tail between your legs at that point because you knew your "plausibility" angle just got decimated. They couldn't have closed all the places the plane would have had to fly over and there is NO WAY anyone outdoors is going to not notice an airliner flying overhead at full throttle and barely off the deck.

But go ahead and play make believe. It is entertaining to watch the convoluted rationalizations you go through to try and sell your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) theories you have no evidence to back up. It is a shame none of your excuses hold up to even the slightest bit of examination.

 

Your posts are hardly worth the time. This response would get you laughed out of the debating hall. I could say the same thing about the witnesses you cite.

It's still plausible that it was closed because of a terror alert and truthers never got wind of it; the truther movement didn't start for some time after the attacks as the analyses of the footage and pictures wasn't on the internet right away. Most people who are truthers now weren't truthers at that point. This is very plausible and your insisting your scenario is a proof that it didn't happen is very lame and let's not forget that the American media are controlled.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4731597&postcount=1087

There are plausible scenarios that would explain this. If the plane was really coming in at full throttle, it could have simply flown over the runway and it would have looked like a take-off from the other side of the airport and it would have looked like an aborted landing from the Pentagon side of the airport.
We don't know exactly which scenario actually happened but we know one of them happened as the physical evidence shows that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144746

This is so clear to the people who take the time to look at it that the only way you're going to sway public opinion on this is to try to bury it to keep people from seeing it. Only a disinfo agent or someone in denial would deny this evidence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEGgAk1AbA4

I think we all know which one you are.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222

As I said above, there are plausible explanaions that would explain this. It could have flown over the runway and looked like an aborted landing and it would have looked like a take-off on the other side. The government would have made sure that the people in the control tower that day were in on the plan; they could have announced something bogus to all the pilots and people working at the airport just before it flew over.

 

Nobody would take you seriously. As for debating, you will be running away soon, so any claims by you of debate are laughable.

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). IF the mall and every other place the plane would have had to have flown over was closed, SOMEONE would know about it. Truthers have gone all out to find witnesses. Look at the effort they went to to find witnesses who claim the plane came in at a different angle. Yet you think they wouldn't be able ot find a single witness out of THOUSANDS that would have seen the plane flying away from the Pentagon? Seriously. Your claim is completely lacking in credibility.

Yet truthers found witnesses YEARS after 9/11 who saw the planes come in at a different angle. Again, history proves your claims are bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

It isn't plausible at all and your whining about the media being controlled is just more bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Why couldn't a witness go to any one of a number of news outlets? Is the BBC controlled? Pravda? Al Jazeera? What about the internet? Why couldn't someone make a youtube video and make their claim there? Does youtube now censor content? Theres about a million truther videos out there that can prove you wrong. Hiding behind the pathetic claim that the media is controlled is bull(*)(*)(*)(*). We both know it. So does anyone reading this. Why you insist on pretending that is the excuse for no witnesses is beyond me. Denial is an ugly thing.

Flown over WHAT runway? RIA is in the wrong direction. You KNOW that. Yet you really want to try and pretend Flight 77 made a sharp 90 degree turn to go back to the airport to then make a 180 degree turn to pretend it was taking off? SERIOUSLY?!?! A plane traveling that fast can't make those kinds of a turn. It would have to fly over the Pentagon and continue its course until high enough and slow enough to turn. By then it is over the National Mall and in front of thousands of witnesses, and not just from the mall. Numerous highways, bridges, parks, boating areas and urban areas were all there as well.

Wrong yet again. What you are really trying to say is you "know" because of your incorrect opinion of what the evidence shows.

Or a rational person who demands evidence, not bull(*)(*)(*)(*) propaganda and opinion foolishly being passed off as evidence. Funny how truthers like to pretend they have all the evidence, yet to date not a single piece of real evidence has ever been submitted by truthers. Now Scott wants to pretend a bunch of nutjobs pretending the "official story" is false without ever getting into the proof it is false somehow validates truthers. Whatever floats your boat, Scott.

You can't defend your claims, you know you have no evidence, your "plausibility" has been demolished, so now you have to attack me personally? Getting desperate, aren't you!

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). None of your "plausible explanations" fit reality. We both know it couldn't have "flown over the runway" when the runway is well over a mile from the flight path in the wrong direction. What are you going to do now? Pretend space warped around flight 77 to allow it to be both over the Pentagon and a mile away over the runway at the same time?

As for making an announcement, you are aware such over the air announcements leave a record, right? Yet nothing was ever recorded on 9/11 of any announcement that would fit your needs to make your desperate attempt at a rationalization plausible.

You're running out of excuses, Scott. Your claim nobody could possibly get their story out doesn't fly because the MSM isn't even close to being the only news outlet. Your claim they could have closed the national mall doesn't fly because there is no record of them closing the national mall, there are plenty of other high traffic areas the plane would have to fly over, and you STILL don't have a single solitary witness that backs your claim up. Your claim of Flight 77 flying over the runway and pretending to take off or land doesn't fly because it is physically impossible given the flight path of Flight 77 and the location of RIA. Your claim of an announcement to pilots doesn't fly because these announcements are both recorded and transmitted in the clear. Anyone listening on 9/11 would have heard it, yet not a single pilot has stepped forward to claim there was an odd message about a plane on 9/11 nor has any recording come forward of such a message, yet we have recordings from the tower.

Looks like you're SOL, Scott. Better luck next time. Isn't it a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) trying to come up with a plausible way nobody could have noticed a 757 flying AWAY from the Pentagon at full throttle and just a few hundred feet off the ground? Those pesky planes are so hard to hide!

 

Scott, this is real simple. Answer this one question honesty. If you were in charge of the conspiracy and knew if you were caught you would be facing the death penalty, would YOU bet your life on a 757 flying over the Pentagon and past some of the most densely populated outdoor attractions in Washington DC without a single person noticing?

 

Good point, Patriot911.

Scott, I don't care to get into a point by point exercise with you because:
a. You are a bit of a fool
and
b. Your mind is firmly made up.

But first a few statements, and then I want to know something;
I am an honest person, a Veteran, and a man of science. I came to this forum to offer you heartfelt and earnest advice on how to effect positive outcomes for your situations and scenarios. I offered honest and truthful testimony told to me by trusted friends who WERE THERE AT THE PENTAGON ON 911, and who saw the plane fly into the building. Friends who lost friends and teammates when the plane smashed into the building.

Do you honestly think they and hundreds of other witnesses were lying?
Are you calling ME a liar?

 

Unless you are a victim of the public educational system,and have been robbed of your ability to think critically,then you can easily see the problems with the official story.

if the government tells you something that is absurd,and you believe without evidence then you are the fool. Common sense and an I.Q. above 10 tells you that the media and government are out to cover up the painfully obvious.

See, I don't want to make your brain short circuit ,but all you have to do is watch a couple clips of the ORIGINAL NEWS FOOTAGE.

[video=youtube;GOfDnuIlehM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOfDnuIlehM[/video]


while your holding your breath for the 911 trials,I would like you to give an explanation better than this FBI agent as to how a plane slams into the ground.......and except for a few small pieces disappears,at the same explain how some of the pieces wound up as far as 8 miles away. I suppose it is common for you to encounter bits and pieces of car and plane crashes floating around,or did they just bounce real hard for 8 miles?.. THIS IS EVIDENCE TO PEOPLE WHO AREN'T SUB-MORONIC.
[video=youtube;frAbhnFdsoQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frAbhnFdsoQ[/video]


Just believe whatever you are told,it probably is much easier for you that way. It's not being gullible or stupid,governments never,ever,ever lie to people.

 

I love it when truthers try to pretend everyone else is a fool when they make complete fools of themselves. Your only evidence is news clips?!? BWAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!! How about Dan Rather's claims of vans full of explosives and car bombs going off in front of the state building in Washington? Funny how truthers believe what they want to believe and dismiss everything else even when they are from the same source. Ignorance is pretending the news got it perfectly right on 9/11 and completely wrong the rest of the time because they were covering it up. How (*)(*)(*)(*)ing stupid is that! Looks like we know who has the IQ of 10 and lacks the ability to think critically.

 

I see that Patriot119 didn't address the issue he was asked to address. Yet, he has the attitude that he's winning the debate here. People of normal intelligence can see what's going on here but I'd better post this in case anybody is actually confused.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------
A sophism is taken as a specious argument used for deceiving someone. It might be crafted to seem logical while actually being wrong, or it might use difficult words and complicated sentences to intimidate the audience into agreeing, or it might appeal to the audience's prejudices and emotions rather than logic, i.e. raising doubts towards the one asserting, rather than his assertion. The goal of a sophism is often to make the audience believe the writer or speaker to be smarter than he or she actually is, e.g., accusing another of sophistry for using persuasion techniques. An
Ad Hominem argument is an example of Sophistry.
A sophist is a user of sophisms, i.e., an insincere person trying to confuse or deceive people. A sophist tries to persuade the audience while paying little attention to whether his argument is logical and factual.
----------------------------------------------------------------

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sophism
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------
A flawed argument superficially correct in its reasoning, usually designed to deceive. An intentional fallacy.
----------------------------------------------------------------

http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/sophism
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------
In ancient Greece, one of a group of 5th-century BC itinerant lecturers on culture, rhetoric, and politics. Sceptical about the possibility of achieving genuine knowledge, they applied bogus reasoning and were concerned with winning arguments rather than establishing the truth. Plato regarded them as dishonest and sophistry came to mean fallacious reasoning. In the 2nd century AD the term was linked to the art of public speaking.
----------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/specious
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------
having a false look of truth or genuineness
----------------------------------------------------------------

http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Sophism
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The essential claim of sophistry is that the actual logical validity of an argument is irrelevant (if not non-existent); it is only the ruling of the audience which ultimately determine whether a conclusion is considered "true" or not. By appealing to the prejudices and emotions of the judges, one can garner favorable treatment for one's side of the argument and cause a factually false position to be ruled true.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/SOPHISM
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------
A deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone
----------------------------------------------------------------

http://grammar.about.com/od/rs/g/sophismterm.htm
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Because of their developed ability to argue either side of a case, the Sophists' students were powerful contestants in the popular debating contests of their day, and also were highly successful advocates in court. The dialectical method was employed in part because the Sophists accepted the notion of dissoi logoi, or contradictory arguments. That is, Sophists believed that strong arguments could be produced for or against any claim. . .
--------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.wordnik.com/words/sophism
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------
A false argumentation devised for the exercise of one's ingenuity or for the purpose of deceit; sometimes, a logically false argumentation; a fallacy. The word is especially applied to certain ancient tricks of reasoning, which before the systematization of logic and grammar had a real value, and were treated as important secrets.
--------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.english-test.n...t-definitions.php#sophism
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------
a false argument understood to be such by the reasoner himself and intentionally used to deceive
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Patriot911 will always be here posting with the attitude that he's winning no matter how lame his position is.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and non-acceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their presentation. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the "image" and are hot and cold with respect to emotions they pretend to have and the more calm or normal communications which are not emotional. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to "act their role in type" as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Wow Scott. What an utterly juvenile and puerile response. What's next? Throwing yourself on the floor and crying because you got your ass kicked yet again? I explained everything point for point. I even gave you an extra credit question. You failed at everything. Congratulations! "Perfect" score! Your posts prove just what truthers are capable and incapable of; capable of being dishonest and then running away as you clearly demonstrated above and incapable of being honest or addressing the questions that surround your theories.

Did your little tirade make you feel better? I hope it was worth the hit to your credibility. Not that there is much, if any, left.....

 

This is the only picture I could find.
http://membres.multimania.fr/applemacintosh/Pentagon/77approach.jpg

The flightpath in the picture is over the wrong side of the Pentagon in the picture. The side to the right of the white line is the side that was hit.

According to the witnesses cited here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGvXVzdlcQk
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2170

...the flight path was almost in line with a runway at the RR airport. It looks like it would only have had to make a minor adjustment to be able to land or do an aborted takeoff.

Here's a post from another thread with more info.
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/...-plane-flew-over-pentagon.html#post1060818311

Your response to post #32 was just a tap dance. Why don't you address the issue you were asked to address?

 

And at a more extreme angle. So the only picture you have is one that goes against the physical evidence and the vast majority of the witnesses? What happened to your claim you go by the physical evidence? The physical evidence clearly shows a plane coming from almost 90 degrees counter clockwise from your photo heading AWAY from the airport.

At full throttle and 500+ mph, NOTHING is minor. And you STILL don't have a single witness that claims the plane went OVER the Pentagon. Not even the CIT witnesses make that claim, yet you swallow everything they say as absolute gospel despite all the evidence and witnesses to the contrary.

You got your ass handed to you in that thread and you ended up running away.

In case you missed it, here is my post that you ran away from.

This coming from a guy who routinely runs away when the heat gets to hot and he can't respond to the issues is just hysterical! I am STILL waiting for you to post one single piece of REAL evidence that proves your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) theories. The lameassed and highly inaccurate claims made in #32 are a joke. They've been responded to numerous times in other threads and the poster rarely, if ever, actually responds. My response was spot on. Sorry you don't like it, but then again, I don't really care what you think.

 

Patriot,

Do you except the testimony of people who have been eyewitnesses to UFOs?

 

You mean do I ACCEPT the testimony of people who have been eyewitnesses to UFOs? Unless I have evidence they are lying, why wouldn't I? They obviously saw something. They don't know what it was. Thus it was an Unidentified Flying Object. Do I automatically believe them if they think it was aliens? No. That is their opinion of what they saw.

Out of curiosity, why don't you ask Scott or the other truthers the same question? They blatantly ignore the testimonies of numerous witnesses and, in the case of Scott, claim they are all plants unless they say something Scott wants to hear. The hypocricy of your position is amazing.

Everything seems to be an absolute with you, Jango. Some day you will learn that life is full of shades of gray and very rarely black and white. Ironically, you have to be black and white in order to try and pretend my beliefs are black and white. Better luck next time. I have explained my philosophy numerous times, yet you still refuse to believe.

 

Well, the truth is the truth, man. The point I was making, minus epileptic typo, is that people can be witnesses to all sorts of things. Whether or not their testimony is credible is determined by what?

But furthering the line - do you believe the testimony of people that have claimed to have seen aliens and/or been abducted?

 

Testimony is usually backed up by the evidence. When a few people claim a plane came in at a different angle from the majority that say it came in at the angle that is backed up by all the physical evidence, one has to believe the majority and disbelieve the minority.

If they had evidence, I would believe them. So would most everyone else. In the meantime, I will consider the possibility that they saw aliens or were abducted. Now, if you had a whole group that was abducted at once, the credibility of the group would be greater than the credibility of the one. Regardless, without evidence to back up their claim, I would remain skeptical but open to the possibility.

The same is true with everything in regards to 9/11. I've looked at all sides over the years. I've looked at each of the truther claims and found them false. I've also found that truthers will refuse to look at the evidence that does not agree with the theory du jour, yet as the theories change, the evidence they rejected yesterday will be embraced as gospel today. That kind of mentality is seriously messed up.

Personally I honestly believe most truthers know they are preaching numerous lies. The are in love with the idea that it was the government, the Jews, or whatever bad guy they wish to demonize, so they rationalize that it is OK to lie.

So now it is your turn. Do you believe William Rodriguez has any credibility? He was there on 9/11 and has given his testimony numerous times over the years.

 

Okay, I'll re-direct.

As you know, I am a LIHOP theorist.

My question to you is: how do you know?

How do you know for sure?


And why have you avoided my thread in the 9/11 section?

 

(from post #27)

If you look at the picture of the Pentagon with the RR airport behind it...
http://membres.multimania.fr/applemacintosh/Pentagon/77approach.jpg
(disregard the white line in the photo as it's in the wrong place)

...and look at the angle of the 757 that was described by the witnesses,...
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2170

...it's obviously not ninety degrees as you said it was. It's almost lined up with the runway. Tell us why you said it was ninety degrees. You seem to be trying to mislead those viewers who don't have the time to actually look at the evidence being discussed.

All of the points you brought up in post #37...
http://www.politicalforum.com/consp...ce-conspiracy-theorists-4.html#post1061393201

...are addressed in the list of info I've posted.
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/...-plane-flew-over-pentagon.html#post1060818311
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144746

It takes a while to watch all of the videos so I suppose there are a lot of viewers who don't have the time to look at it all. All I can say is that those viewers should withhold judgement until thay've had time to look at all of the info as Patriot9/11 is famous for misrepresenting the info that truthers put forth to mislead the viewers who don't have the time to look at all of it.

 

I don't know for sure. How many times do I have to repeat myself? All you have to do is present evidence anyone knew about it in advance and let it happen. Even that simple theory would have numerous people involved. Bush, Cheney and everyone else weren't involved in the intelligence gathering process, so there would be others that know the truth.

Because it is especailly lame and pointless. If you want to make a point, make a point. Don't give senseless history homework you will only ignore if someone makes a point you weren't specifically after.

 

This from an extremely dishonest poster who says he looks at the physical evidence. You have a bare handfull of witnesses who's testimony is refuted by over a hundred others PLUS the physical evidence which puts the plane on a 90 degree course. It was your own claim the two planes came in at the same time so there was only one signature. Are you now making the claim that the planes came in at two different angles? Wow. That would be even MORE retarded. You know how hard it would be to time two planes intersecting the same point at the same time? Pretty easy if they are on the same course. Nearly impossible when on 90 degree courses to one another.

The other fatal flaw is that the witnesses you have all say the plane hit the Pentagon. They would have seen the plane fly over if it had. Yet the same witnesses you tout as completely reliable and credible are the exact same witnesses you will claim are either wrong or plants. So which is it?

You may like to try and convince yourself of that, but nobody else is buying it. First off, you ran like a little girl from that post. Second, your claim of planted witnesses and media suppression doesn't even come CLOSE to explaining the complete and utter lack of witnesses.

OR all they have to do is recognize you STILL can't produce one single shred of real evidence. Your case is so weak you have to try and have people watch mind numbingly stupid videos to try and make points you know you could never make stick. Pathetic!

 

Anybody who takes the time to watch this eight-part series...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGvXVzdlcQk

...will see that none of those witnesses said he'd actually seen the plane hit the Pentagon. It flew out of their site and then there was an explosion and they just assumed that it had hit the Pentagon.

This guy Patriot911 is famous for misrepresenting the info in truther videos to take in those viewers who don't have the time to watch them. Don't take this guy's word on anything when he talks about truther videos. He lies.

 

Yet NONE of them saw a plane flying off. Wake up and smell the (*)(*)(*)(*) you've been shoveling. The stench is getting really BAD!

I just speak the truth. Drives the truthers crazy because they can't respond, know they can't respond and they know they're lying their collective asses off about the whole thing.

Well, did that make you feel better? A shame you can't actually defend against the truth. If all you can do is "warn" people about me, what does that say about you and your theories? I don't talk about videos. I talk about what you post. Still waiting for you to produce just one piece of real evidence your bat(*)(*)(*)(*) crazy theories are fact instead of fiction. Hell, you can't even back up your "plausibilities". You claim not one witness has ever come forward because the MSM is controlled, yet here you sit on a public forum whining about it. Couldn't THEY get on a public forum like all the other truthers? Sure they could. Couldn't they find alternate media like indymedia? Of course they could. Couldn't they get on foreign media? You betcha. But apparently every single witness decided it was just too much effort to tell everyone what they saw according to your fantasy land.

I don't buy it.

Doesn't look like anyone else does either.

You're going to need more than lameassed videos that lie all the time to convince people. The cat is out of the bag that the truthers don't care about the truth and are perfectly OK with lying about everything.

 

Numerous people that can be paid off or silenced, sure. People that were probably on the 'inside team'. Not a stretch of the imagination.

Point taken.

 

Two things, Jango:

* I have worked for, in, and around the government nearly my whole life.
The federal government can't concoct a plan to get in a car and drive to WALMART without somebody blabbing, spilling the beans, fumbling the plan, and screwing it up from top to bottom. The notion that somehow the federal government brilliantly executed this cover-up scenario and effectively silenced hundreds of people is simply ludicrous.

* A missile or a bomb will not leave behind the overpowering smell of Jet-A (the type of fuel used by civilian airliners and military planes and helicopters alike).
My good friend who I described earlier as having lost his coworkers in the attack, was an Apache helicopter pilot prior to his service at the Pentagon.
There is no mistaking the strong smell of jet fuel. We worked around it for years.

* I personally resent the insinuation that my good friends who were inside the Pentagon when the plane hit, and my other good friend and her team-mates who witnessed the airliner slam into the Pentagon with their own eyes,
are somehow liars and stooges.

These are credible, respected professionals. Men and women of integrity and honor.
(One of whom later died in Iraq, serving her country with great valor.)
There's nothing you can concoct or theorize on a snippety web-forum like this that is going to change that, sir.

 

I never thought hundreds of people were in on it. I thought I was pretty clear.

Maybe Bush and Cheney, when they jointly talked, spilled the beans on the whole ordeal. But who knows, their testimony is classified. Why is it classified? Why haven't we seen it after ten years? Do you not care about this?

And I am sorry for what your friends had to go through.