overwhelming proof of Israli involement in 9/11 and the media coverup.

You'd get laughed out of the debating hall for tap dancing around the evidence I post instead of addressing it.

This evidence shows that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon.
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/193865-disinformation-shills-27.html#post4735087

You say the light poles trump that. My rebuttal tio that is the info in post #1 of this link.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9632

Whether I copy and paste post #1, or you click on it and read it, it's the same info. I gave my rebuttal to you're assertion that the light poles trumped the evidence I posted that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon. I await your counter-rebuttal.

 

So in this fanciful debate you claim we're having; your saying a website over and over is your idea of effectiveness? *giggle*

Either you will or you won't post what your explanation. If you are so timid as to not wish to post it, I can't help you.

Have a nice day.

 

Ok. I'll copy and paste post #1.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9632
--------------------------------------------------------------
The downed light poles at the Pentagon are arguably the most convincing evidence that a 757 caused the physical damage that day.

But now that we know the plane was on the north side of the CITGO station it is clear that they got there somehow else.

This is compounded by the fact that it is physically impossible for Lloyd England's story to be true.

This may seem like a complex task but it would actually be quite simple for the suspect in question to accomplish.

First realize that the area is the literal backyard of the suspect and one of the most highly secured areas in the nation.

It's right by the heliport where the President travels from quite often and in fact he had left from there the day before and was scheduled to return there that afternoon!


Heliport firefighter Allan Wallace:
QUOTE
Our first helicopter flight was around 10AM. But we were expecting President George W. Bush to land in Marine One around 12 Noon, returning from Jacksonville, Florida. (He had actually left from the Pentagon the day before.) Needless to say, neither flight arrived at the Pentagon that day because of the terrorist attacks.
source

This means that they had all the excuse they needed to "secure" the area in preparation for his arrival and this would even be quite routine and expected for the people in the area since the President travels from there regularly.


The poles could have been removed in the middle of the night on any night prior to the event in what could have been made to look like regular late night road work.

Then the pre-fabricated damaged poles could be put in place perhaps at 4:00am on 9/11 or even later in the day while they were "securing" the area for the President's scheduled arrival.

4 of the 5 poles were hidden off to the side on the grass.
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/187b.jpg)

I'll address pole 1 in a bit.

There isn't a reason that any of them would cause a reason for alarm or notice by any of the morning rush hour traffic even if they could be seen.

Pole 2 was completely hidden and poles 4 and 5 were down on slopes.

They were all on Pentagon property/jurisdiction/control which could have been on serious lock down due to the President's scheduled arrival.

(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/pentagon trip/wherelightpolesfell.jpg)

But the bottom line is that EVEN IF someone did happen to see a pole on the ground and remember and EVEN IF they put 2 and 2 together after the fact and called the FBI obviously nothing would have happened.

But they most likely would NOT put 2 and 2 together because the light poles were an insignificant tiny blip on the most historically tragic day in U.S. history.

The average public has absolutely no clue about the light poles at all and even many in the movement aren't aware of them.

The poles have not been covered in a single official report either.

This seemingly impossible scenario to stage would have been child's play to do in their own backyard for the same perpetrators who pulled off a covert triple controlled demolition in downtown Manhattan.

Light pole one was likely staged after the fact and a detailed photographic look into this scene is available here.


But as a summary the possibly pre-damaged cab could have been towed or driven to it's spot where they partially blocked traffic and placed it. Minutes later feds rolled up and surrounded the area and completely blocked traffic.

These images show you how much control they had of the scene after blocking traffic and surrounding the area as well as how the cars on the other side of the highway going northbound wouldn't see anything because of the HOV lane that was already closed and had two sets of guardrails:
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Lloyd/hovlane.jpg)
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Lloyd/trafficblocked.jpg)
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Lloyd/polesurrounded.jpg)
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Lloyd/lloydandfeds.jpg)

These images were all taken within 17 minutes maximum after the event. Traffic was already completely blocked and the entire scene was controlled.

They could have done anything they wanted and it wouldn't matter because the Pentagon was burning and nobody would care or notice the feds and the cab and the pole even if they could see them. But they can't.

Pole 1 could have been pulled from the shoulder, maybe from behind the bush, over the guardrail from the other side, or even unloaded from a truck all in about 30 seconds.

We do know it was moved before all these images were taken due to the scratch on the road:
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/ingersoll/pentagonoyx8.jpg)

This plain clothed federal agent with the red tie who was likely driving the white Saturn was a central figure in this scene:
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Lloyd/redtiedude2.jpg)


The notion that the poles were blown with explosives or knocked down by the vortex of a second plane or a missile is simply not possible primarily due to the physical damage of the poles revealing that they were somehow pinched at the top:
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/light poles/polepinched4.jpg)
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/light poles/polepinched22.jpg)
---------------------------------------------------

Do you see it now?

I found this so it's not my work. I just agree with it. Tell us what you think of it.

 

I think it is a total garbage fest.

First question.

So your angle is that they hijacked AA77 for no reason at all?

 

Another discrepancy:

Explain how it was "towed or driven" when traffic was completely blocked?

You're stating that somehow the wrecker driver after the plane hit, stopped the wrecker in the middle of the street, unloaded a damaged cab, sped away and nobody saw this?

Meanwhile, another team brought just one of the poles--not any other ones--to the middle of the street to stage them.

Is that your stance?

 

Why was the Pentagon attacked again? Perhaps you can just answer the question instead of giving us 40 pages of dancing.

 

Why do you insist on people answering questions when you refuse to do so yourself? You're dancing around KSM's proven false confessions like it's a Mexican hat.

 

There's are several plausible scenarios. This is very weak.

Maybe it had been towed there before traffic was blocked and hidden off the road. Lot's of the people in that segment of traffic might have been plants.

The press wouldn't have reported any irregularities if anyone had tried to tell them.
http://www.thismodernworld.org/arc/1993/93short-attention-span.gif
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=chomsky+media&aq=f
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=Wi5h3vZl6uo
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=William+Schaap++-+The+Media,+CIA,+FBI+&+Disinfo.+&aq=f
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/MediaControl_Chomsky.html
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/media_watch.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Propaganda/Propaganda_page.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media_control_propaganda/Media_Control.html
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/official_culture.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=trWcqxrQgcc
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman /Propaganda_System_One.html
PsyWar - Wake UP! - YouTube

It would have been easy if the pole had been hidden along the side of the road and there were enough plants in the traffic. Go back and read post #1 of that link from "Pilots for Truth" more carefully.

It was attacked in order to make Americans think they were being attacked by Muslim terrorists so the government would have a pretext to go into the Middle East and take control.

Your position is very weak. You'd get laughed out of the debating hall for saying the things you say here. Your authoritative patronizing attitude does not fit the situation.

 

There certainly are when you are making stuff up based on zero evidence.

Maybe and might have been? Good grief. More people in on the conspiracy and none of them, interestingly enough have said a word about it.

Oh yes they would. There are hundreds if not thousands of members of the press who would just LOVE to pin something like this on Bush & Co.

More "would haves'', ''could haves'', made up scenarios and an even larger conspiracy involving random commuters?

Dude, you are HILARIOUS!! But I'm sure the irony of your statement is lost on you.

 

I agree, your retort is very weak.

Maybe? Might have been? In a debate, such wiggle room is a sure sign that you have no idea.

Your speculation on "plants" is interesting in a desperate sort of way. But lets look at it on face value. You say "Maybe it had been towed there before traffic was blocked and hidden off road." I won't ask you where because you'll just make something else up. Lets allocate one person to drive the tow truck and miraculously drive the truck, stop it, get out in rush hour traffic, unload the damaged cab into the middle of the road, THEN....grab a lightpole that was also stashed somewhere THEN move it to the middle of the road. One person can't do all of that without being noticed--no way in hell but lets play along with your crazy fantasy. Thats one person.

Now you say that there might have been "plants" in the traffic. I'm not sure why you would want plants but this is your make believe world--I'm just visiting it...so now we have 2 "plants".

So we have 3 people added into this fairy tale of yours.

Add in the cab driver. Make it four. Four people.

To add to the four, we have a paid off press pool. Thats many hundreds of people that are being paid off. But lets continue on with the twoofer speculation that all media is controlled by a handful of people. That makes it 9 people in on this little adventure so far.

Agreed? No? Tell me why.

More "would haves" and even more "plants".

Sidebar: If your position is so strong, why hasn't your movement gotten anywhere in 10 years? What are you waiting for? Yeah, thats what I thought.

So the Pentagon was attacked in order to make Americans think we were being attacked.

Questions:

Why was AA77 hijacked and not used?

Why add in the variables of the hijack and then receive no benefit from it?

Why add in the light poles?

Why add in the cab getting hit by the light poles..obviously just because the poles are knocked down, one doesn't automatically assume that a car will be hit by them; much less through the windshield.

Why add in the 9 people (although we know it would be hundreds more that you would have paid off ...AND WOULD CONTINUE TO HAVE TO PAY OFF TIL THIS DAY) when you didn't need the light poles in the first place?

Seriously, you said the Pentagon was attacked to lead us into a war. So why not have the angle of impact be higher and you don't have to worry about getting someone to damage a cab, hide the cab (somewhere), stash the poles, then run out in broad daylight and unload a damaged cab, plant light poles, then run off without being seen.

So....let me ask you the following questions Scotty....

Air traffic controllers tracked AA77 into the Pentagon. Were they paid off to fabricate that?

How did the plane parts get all around the Pentagon?

How did plane parts get inside the Pentagon?

How did passenger DNA get inside the Pentagon when no plane was crashed into the Pentagon?

Your words please; no "look at this link" shenanigans.

Lets hear it.

 

Hey candycorn-

You've seen a lot of those points discussed on other threads and now you're talking as if you'd never seen the truthers' explanations for them before. You're trying to sway the viewers who haven't looked at those other threads. Every point you raised has several plausible alternative explanations. As I've already seen pointed out to you, if something has another plausible explanation, it can't be used as proof. This is a very basic point in debating. Your rhetoric isn't impressing any thinking people.

I'll address a few of your points for now.

You've seen this addressed before but here it is again. Start watching this video at the 44:00 time mark.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5wkyEDIxTk"]9/11 - Painful Deceptions - (Full Length). - YouTube[/ame]

They had control over the whole area. It would have been easy to plant them before and after the crash.

There's an explanation for that in this video.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WC9KZ2Yy5g4"]Inside 9/11 - Who controlled the planes? - YouTube[/ame]

Your position is very weak. Your underlying strategy seems to be to fill up the thread with BS to make the posts with the proof of an inside job harder for the new viewers to come across. We can thwart you by reposting it.
http://able2know.org/topic/177268-1#post-4782975

There is some very clear evidence of an inside job such as the fact that the plane that hit the Pentagon was too small to be a 757...
http://www.bcrevolution.ca/911_part_iii.htm

...and that the nose of the craft that hit the Pentagon does not look like the nose of a 757.
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

None the arguments that you present make this go away; there are plausible alternative scenarios for all of them. Let's hear you address the issues of the size of the craft that hit the Pentagon and the shape of its nose.

 

Psst . . . Scott . . . ALL of your supposed proof has another plausible and, I might add, much more probable, explanation.

You've disqualified all of your supposed "proof" in one sentence.

Why don't you give this a read.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...aranoia-911-and-the-roots-conspiracy-theories

It might help you cope.

 

excellent job of taking him to school on this but he'll just cover his ears and close his eyes like he always does and ignore it since it shoots down his posts.

 

well done again as always.

 

Your "look at this link" and "look at this video" has convinced zero persons in 10 plus years. You're stance is the very definition of ineffective.

You forgot the rules.

You have to type it out.

Negative. Firefighters were in the area as were other first responers.

Are you now making the allegation that firefighters and other first responders are "in on it"?

Tsk tsk...you forgot the rules yet again.

Your words.

Strategy is to get you to state what you think. As I made you do so earlier. Now that I'm asking questions about it, you're back to your "watch this" and "follow this". Isn't going to work sport. You gotta state what you think and then stand by it.

I've noticed that you don't want any part of the "Why did they hijack AA77 if they are not going to use it" and "Why involve the poles at all". It's okay. We all know you have no answers; just more minuta.

Question; do you think anybody cares about your posts on another message board?

There is no evidence of anything other than a 757 hitting the Pentagon. And there is no evidence of anything other than that 757 being American Airlines Flight 77.

Nobody cares about this link either.

Your words.

The lightpoles prove it was a plane. Your theory about the poles being planted holds no water because 1) nobody saw anybody plant anything, 2)the lightpoles were not a necessary addition to the plane being used 3)it doesn't account for the wreckage 4) it doesn't account for the ATC tracking the flight into the Pentagon airspace and 5) it doesn't account for why AA77 was hijacked.


You've failed in nearly every inconceivable area.

 

You can't change the established rules of debate. The info in those videos is my rebuttal to your arguments. You are lamely trying to avoid addressing that info because you know you can't try to obfuscate it without looking silly. How many people do you think are falling for your BS?

Please address the info in those videos.

Is that your response to this?

You didn't adddress my actual argument. Your response would get you laughed out of the debating hall. Please address the actual evidence I posted.

Your posts are so lame that they're hardly worth responding to.

 

No.

The rules are this; you must type out what you want entered into consideration/evidence. Sorry. Those are the rules. Compliance is not an option.

As for "established"? Now thats funny...you think the rules are "look at this video and comment"...no dear. You must write out what you want considered. It is the established and, frankly, the oldest form of communication known to man. You Tube? Don't make me laugh on purpose.

Now back to the points you're running from:


Why did they hijack AA77 and not use it?

Why did they include the lightpoles when it was totally unnecessary?


Stop hemming and hawing....answer the questions. Are you scared?

No videos.
No links.
No more beating around the bush.

Just type out your response. Those are the rules.

Don't sing it; bring it.

I > U

 

Thats why its best not to and just ignore them.He never addresses evidence or your points you bring up.He wouldnt last one minute against a first grader in a debating contest if he debated like this.
everybody that debates him finds that out immediately.

 

Wow...I can't believe I just read that.

 

This is what I mean...you "could" go to bat for Scotty there but now you're focusing on not believing that writing is the oldest form of communication. Now, in truth, I didn't try to date the written word (nor did I say it by the way) but meant writing as opposed to hyperlinks and YouTube videos.

This will be what you guys focus on as an escape hatch on the subject.

I know you better than you know yourselves....I know your tactics, they all fail and they are totally childish.

Please explain the lightpoles.

Betcha can't.

I > U

 

whats REALLY hysterical about that post is HE called HIM dear. I'll be laughing about THAT one for ages. that says it all right there.

 

It's been explained to you several times. You just keep playing dumb and trying to bury it to reduce the nuber of people who see it.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion.
-----------------------------------------

Here it is again.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9632

When you pro-official version people are cornered and can't explain something, you wait a few pages and ask the same question again as if it hadn't been addressed. I suppose you're trying to sway those viewers who have just tuned in and only read the last page of threads. They then mistakenly believe truthers don't have an answer to the question.

 

And I debunked it over and over. Your explanations made zero sense and were full of "could haves" and "maybes"

Why include the lightpoles at all? Your goal of attacking the Pentagon could have been achieved without involving them in any way, shape, or form.