9/11: What really happened on that day?

[phoenyx]

Truthers are pretty much the scum of the earth.

Disagreed. Liars are scum of the Earth. Truthers are...

I decided to google the term "truther". Here's google's definition: **a person who doubts the generally accepted account of an event, believing that an official conspiracy exists to conceal the true explanation**

I find it unfortunate that the definition has been narrowed down only to those who doubt a generally accepted account of an event. I certainly believe the generally accepted accounts of -some- events, just not all of them. It's kind of like the label "conspiracy theorists". It's come to mean only someone who believes in conspiracies that are generally not accepted, but the fact of the matter that the official narrative is also a conspiracy theory, it's just the official one.

As to liars, it's a broad definition. I haven't met a person who has said they have never lied, nor do I believe that lying is always a bad thing. It depends what you're lying about. If you were in Nazi Germany and harbouring a known jewish fugitive, but lied about it to the Gestapo, I would say that was a courageous thing to do. It's all about context.

 

[phoenyx]

It may well be. It takes 2 to tango. I'm only one side of the debate. Anyway, as to the Pentaplane flyover theory thread, I'm pretty sure I'll get back to it, I just think I want a bit of time off from all the ad hominem attacks in general. I've been really getting to like the Clean Debate Zone. I just made a thread there regarding current U.S. wars, which (in theory) could eventually lead to the subject of 9/11.

I've not been attacking you personally

You've attacked truthers in general, of which I consider myself to be a card carrying member. As far as I'm concerned, if you attack a group I'm a member of, you're attacking me as well. As to the rest of your post, as I mentioned in the past, I do intend to get back to the Pentaplane Flyover Theory thread, eventually.

So you finally come back to your own thread,

Don't tell me you were waiting with baited breath .

not to address the nail in the coffin to your nonsense ...

Sigh -.- Just because I'm not interested in going over the details of a single point regarding the Pentagon attack doesn't mean that it's "the nail in the coffin" of those who disagree with the official conspiracy theories concerning 9/11.

Just to clarify...

No need, it's been addressed over and over again. We both know what your point is, we both know that CIT disagrees with your stance on that, and we both know who I trust more. There are -many- pieces of evidence regarding 9/11, and even the Pentaplane flyover, but you choose to go over the one point that I'm not interested in pursuing -.-.

 

[Faun]

I've not been attacking you personally

You've attacked truthers in general, of which I consider myself to be a card carrying member. As far as I'm concerned, if you attack a group I'm a member of, you're attacking me as well. As to the rest of your post, as I mentioned in the past, I do intend to get back to the Pentaplane Flyover Theory thread, eventually.

So you finally come back to your own thread,

Don't tell me you were waiting with baited breath .

not to address the nail in the coffin to your nonsense ...

Sigh -.- Just because I'm not interested in going over the details of a single point regarding the Pentagon attack doesn't mean that it's "the nail in the coffin" of those who disagree with the official conspiracy theories concerning 9/11.

Just to clarify...

No need, it's been addressed over and over again. We both know what your point is, we both know that CIT disagrees with your stance on that, and we both know who I trust more. There are -many- pieces of evidence regarding 9/11, and even the Pentaplane flyover, but you choose to go over the one point that I'm not interested in pursuing -.-.

According to you, CIT believes the shadow proves the plane flew north of the Citgo station. You're certainly welcome to believe that but I gotta tell ya.... you're crazy for believing that.

The shadow appeared on the south side of the Citgo and the sun was to the east. On what planet do you exist where the laws of physics do not apply??

 

[candycorn]

Truthers are pretty much the scum of the earth.

Disagreed. Liars are scum of the Earth. Truthers are, like other conspiracy theorists, just sad people who are incapable of handling the chaos of reality so they trick themselves into believing they "know" the truth. It's okay to confront their delusions, but they should be pitied, not scorned.

Pity is reserved for the pitiful. With twoofers you have folks who are shown to be wrong and insist they are correct

 

[candycorn]

It may well be. It takes 2 to tango. I'm only one side of the debate. Anyway, as to the Pentaplane flyover theory thread, I'm pretty sure I'll get back to it, I just think I want a bit of time off from all the ad hominem attacks in general. I've been really getting to like the Clean Debate Zone. I just made a thread there regarding current U.S. wars, which (in theory) could eventually lead to the subject of 9/11.

I've not been attacking you personally

You've attacked truthers in general, of which I consider myself to be a card carrying member. As far as I'm concerned, if you attack a group I'm a member of, you're attacking me as well. As to the rest of your post, as I mentioned in the past, I do intend to get back to the Pentaplane Flyover Theory thread, eventually.

So you finally come back to your own thread,

Don't tell me you were waiting with baited breath .

not to address the nail in the coffin to your nonsense ...

Sigh -.- Just because I'm not interested in going over the details of a single point regarding the Pentagon attack doesn't mean that it's "the nail in the coffin" of those who disagree with the official conspiracy theories concerning 9/11.

Just to clarify... that single point being tbe visual evidence the plane flew south of the Citgo station.

But I understand why you choose to ignore it.

Correction, supposed visual evidence. We have no proof that the people we saw on the videos are who they said they were

 

[Divine Wind]

Many people question the official conspiracy theory, including 300+ survivors and family members:
Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

Out of how many survivors and families? Please don't mix apples and oranges when you answer.

 

[Divine Wind]

Pity is reserved for the pitiful. With twoofers you have folks who are shown to be wrong and insist they are correct

Since, as previously stated on several occasions including above, I consider CTers to be mentally deficient, perhaps even ill, I do consider them pitiful.

 

[phoenyx]

Many people question the official conspiracy theory, including 300+ survivors and family members:
Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

Out of how many survivors and families?

I don't know. What is your point? There's also this story, which I found interesting...
9/11 families criticized for 'silent' settlement in negligence case

 

[phoenyx]

Pity is reserved for the pitiful. With twoofers you have folks who are shown to be wrong and insist they are correct

Since, as previously stated on several occasions including above, I consider CTers to be mentally deficient, perhaps even ill, I do consider them pitiful.

You've said things like this before. I'm tired of these villifications, on the ignore list you go.

 

[phoenyx]

You've attacked truthers in general, of which I consider myself to be a card carrying member. As far as I'm concerned, if you attack a group I'm a member of, you're attacking me as well. As to the rest of your post, as I mentioned in the past, I do intend to get back to the Pentaplane Flyover Theory thread, eventually.

So you finally come back to your own thread,

Don't tell me you were waiting with baited breath .

not to address the nail in the coffin to your nonsense ...

Sigh -.- Just because I'm not interested in going over the details of a single point regarding the Pentagon attack doesn't mean that it's "the nail in the coffin" of those who disagree with the official conspiracy theories concerning 9/11.

Just to clarify...

No need, it's been addressed over and over again. We both know what your point is, we both know that CIT disagrees with your stance on that, and we both know who I trust more. There are -many- pieces of evidence regarding 9/11, and even the Pentaplane flyover, but you choose to go over the one point that I'm not interested in pursuing -.-.

According to you, CIT believes the shadow proves the plane flew north of the Citgo station. You're certainly welcome to believe that but I gotta tell ya.... you're crazy for believing that.

Not you too Faun -.-? I'll let you off this time, you've posted a lot of good posts, and if I put -you- on ignore, the discussion will probably grind to a halt, as I've consistently found that you had the most in depth points- we could actually go on for long stretches without you insulting me or truthers in general. As to this shadow- put simply, I'm not interested in trying to figure out what some grainy pixels mean. CIT looked at it, determined it meant that plane was on the North side, I'll trust their judgement. But there are -tons- of other pieces of evidence that I have looked at in depth. I believe there's a lot of posts of yours in the Pentaplane thread that I haven't yet addressed that have nothing to do with this shadow you seem so fond of. I may be getting back to those points soon.

 

[Divine Wind]

I don't know. What is your point? ...

The fact you claim how many question the 9/11 investigation but you don't have a fucking clue how many support it. It's called Confirmation Bias. You have it. Want to be skeptical? Go for it, I fully support skepticism. Want to only support conspiracy theory bullshit and completely disregard common sense and factual investigations? Sorry, dude. I won't do that.

 

[Divine Wind]

You've said things like this before. I'm tired of these villifications, on the ignore list you go.

An expect result of a person who runs from truth and the facts.

 

[Faun]

So you finally come back to your own thread,

Don't tell me you were waiting with baited breath .

not to address the nail in the coffin to your nonsense ...

Sigh -.- Just because I'm not interested in going over the details of a single point regarding the Pentagon attack doesn't mean that it's "the nail in the coffin" of those who disagree with the official conspiracy theories concerning 9/11.

Just to clarify...

No need, it's been addressed over and over again. We both know what your point is, we both know that CIT disagrees with your stance on that, and we both know who I trust more. There are -many- pieces of evidence regarding 9/11, and even the Pentaplane flyover, but you choose to go over the one point that I'm not interested in pursuing -.-.

According to you, CIT believes the shadow proves the plane flew north of the Citgo station. You're certainly welcome to believe that but I gotta tell ya.... you're crazy for believing that.

Not you too Faun -.-? I'll let you off this time, you've posted a lot of good posts, and if I put -you- on ignore, the discussion will probably grind to a halt, as I've consistently found that you had the most in depth points- we could actually go on for long stretches without you insulting me or truthers in general. As to this shadow- put simply, I'm not interested in trying to figure out what some grainy pixels mean. CIT looked at it, determined it meant that plane was on the North side, I'll trust their judgement. But there are -tons- of other pieces of evidence that I have looked at in depth. I believe there's a lot of posts of yours in the Pentaplane thread that I haven't yet addressed that have nothing to do with this shadow you seem so fond of. I may be getting back to those points soon.

You're certainly welcome to ignore me or the points which utterly break the back of your conspiracy, but you do so at your own peril as others here are not as eager to turn a blind's eye to the facts.

In the photo below, I've place a red circle representing the general vicinity for where that shadow appeared in the video. I've place a green arrow indicating the general direction of sunlight. These "estimates" are not exact but the shadow did appear south of the Citgo station and though I don't know the exact azimuth angle of the sun at that hour on that day, the sun was still east of the gas station. The plane was about 100' to 150' off the ground.

So if you believe that shadow determines the plane was on the north side of the Citgo, explain how the laws of physics, which dictate the plane would have to be in a direct path between its shadow and the sun, could be north of the Citgo but cast a shadow to the south of it.

And I've engaged pretty much every angle of your conspiracy claims you've posted. I'd appreciate the same in return.

 

[Divine Wind]

Don't tell me you were waiting with baited breath .

Sigh -.- Just because I'm not interested in going over the details of a single point regarding the Pentagon attack doesn't mean that it's "the nail in the coffin" of those who disagree with the official conspiracy theories concerning 9/11.

Just to clarify...

No need, it's been addressed over and over again. We both know what your point is, we both know that CIT disagrees with your stance on that, and we both know who I trust more. There are -many- pieces of evidence regarding 9/11, and even the Pentaplane flyover, but you choose to go over the one point that I'm not interested in pursuing -.-.

According to you, CIT believes the shadow proves the plane flew north of the Citgo station. You're certainly welcome to believe that but I gotta tell ya.... you're crazy for believing that.

Not you too Faun -.-? I'll let you off this time, you've posted a lot of good posts, and if I put -you- on ignore, the discussion will probably grind to a halt, as I've consistently found that you had the most in depth points- we could actually go on for long stretches without you insulting me or truthers in general. As to this shadow- put simply, I'm not interested in trying to figure out what some grainy pixels mean. CIT looked at it, determined it meant that plane was on the North side, I'll trust their judgement. But there are -tons- of other pieces of evidence that I have looked at in depth. I believe there's a lot of posts of yours in the Pentaplane thread that I haven't yet addressed that have nothing to do with this shadow you seem so fond of. I may be getting back to those points soon.

You're certainly welcome to ignore me or the points which utterly break the back of your conspiracy, but you do so at your own peril as others here are not as eager to turn a blind's eye to the facts.

In the photo below, I've place a red circle representing the general vicinity for where that shadow appeared in the video. I've place a green arrow indicating the general direction of sunlight. These "estimates" are not exact but the shadow did appear south of the Citgo station and though I don't know the exact azimuth angle of the sun at that hour on that day, the sun was still east of the gas station. The plane was about 100' to 150' off the ground.

So if you believe that shadow determines the plane was on the north side of the Citgo, explain how the laws of physics, which dictate the plane would have to be in a direct path between its shadow and the sun, could be north of the Citgo but cast a shadow to the south of it.

And I've engaged pretty much every angle of your conspiracy claims you've posted. I'd appreciate the same in return.

Dude, you're trying to reason with an irrational person.

When discussing with a person who believes the Moon landings were faked, it's not necessary to refute their every complaint nor teach them how to build a Saturn V. It's only necessary to disagree with them enough to show others, i.e. reasonable people, that it's irrational. To believe the Moon landings were faked requires all the nations of the Earth, especially American enemies such as the USSR and PRC, to either be completely fucking stupid (unlikely) or in on the conspiracy (even more unlikely).

The fact remains irrational people are irrational. Reasoning with them doesn't work. Reason only works with rational people.

 

[phoenyx]

Don't tell me you were waiting with baited breath .

Sigh -.- Just because I'm not interested in going over the details of a single point regarding the Pentagon attack doesn't mean that it's "the nail in the coffin" of those who disagree with the official conspiracy theories concerning 9/11.

Just to clarify...

No need, it's been addressed over and over again. We both know what your point is, we both know that CIT disagrees with your stance on that, and we both know who I trust more. There are -many- pieces of evidence regarding 9/11, and even the Pentaplane flyover, but you choose to go over the one point that I'm not interested in pursuing -.-.

According to you, CIT believes the shadow proves the plane flew north of the Citgo station. You're certainly welcome to believe that but I gotta tell ya.... you're crazy for believing that.

Not you too Faun -.-? I'll let you off this time, you've posted a lot of good posts, and if I put -you- on ignore, the discussion will probably grind to a halt, as I've consistently found that you had the most in depth points- we could actually go on for long stretches without you insulting me or truthers in general. As to this shadow- put simply, I'm not interested in trying to figure out what some grainy pixels mean. CIT looked at it, determined it meant that plane was on the North side, I'll trust their judgement. But there are -tons- of other pieces of evidence that I have looked at in depth. I believe there's a lot of posts of yours in the Pentaplane thread that I haven't yet addressed that have nothing to do with this shadow you seem so fond of. I may be getting back to those points soon.

You're certainly welcome to ignore me or the points which utterly break the back of your conspiracy, but you do so at your own peril as others here are not as eager to turn a blind's eye to the facts.

In the photo below, I've place a red circle representing the general vicinity for where that shadow appeared in the video. I've place a green arrow indicating the general direction of sunlight. These "estimates" are not exact but the shadow did appear south of the Citgo station and though I don't know the exact azimuth angle of the sun at that hour on that day, the sun was still east of the gas station. The plane was about 100' to 150' off the ground.

So if you believe that shadow determines the plane was on the north side of the Citgo, explain how the laws of physics, which dictate the plane would have to be in a direct path between its shadow and the sun, could be north of the Citgo but cast a shadow to the south of it.

And I've engaged pretty much every angle of your conspiracy claims you've posted. I'd appreciate the same in return.

Sigh -.-. You put up a video that alleges to show a shadow. What exact minute/second is the shadow at? Can't believe you've actually got me looking -.-

 

[Faun]

Just to clarify...

No need, it's been addressed over and over again. We both know what your point is, we both know that CIT disagrees with your stance on that, and we both know who I trust more. There are -many- pieces of evidence regarding 9/11, and even the Pentaplane flyover, but you choose to go over the one point that I'm not interested in pursuing -.-.

According to you, CIT believes the shadow proves the plane flew north of the Citgo station. You're certainly welcome to believe that but I gotta tell ya.... you're crazy for believing that.

Not you too Faun -.-? I'll let you off this time, you've posted a lot of good posts, and if I put -you- on ignore, the discussion will probably grind to a halt, as I've consistently found that you had the most in depth points- we could actually go on for long stretches without you insulting me or truthers in general. As to this shadow- put simply, I'm not interested in trying to figure out what some grainy pixels mean. CIT looked at it, determined it meant that plane was on the North side, I'll trust their judgement. But there are -tons- of other pieces of evidence that I have looked at in depth. I believe there's a lot of posts of yours in the Pentaplane thread that I haven't yet addressed that have nothing to do with this shadow you seem so fond of. I may be getting back to those points soon.

You're certainly welcome to ignore me or the points which utterly break the back of your conspiracy, but you do so at your own peril as others here are not as eager to turn a blind's eye to the facts.

In the photo below, I've place a red circle representing the general vicinity for where that shadow appeared in the video. I've place a green arrow indicating the general direction of sunlight. These "estimates" are not exact but the shadow did appear south of the Citgo station and though I don't know the exact azimuth angle of the sun at that hour on that day, the sun was still east of the gas station. The plane was about 100' to 150' off the ground.

So if you believe that shadow determines the plane was on the north side of the Citgo, explain how the laws of physics, which dictate the plane would have to be in a direct path between its shadow and the sun, could be north of the Citgo but cast a shadow to the south of it.

And I've engaged pretty much every angle of your conspiracy claims you've posted. I'd appreciate the same in return.

Dude, you're trying to reason with an irrational person.

When discussing with a person who believes the Moon landings were faked, it's not necessary to refute their every complaint nor teach them how to build a Saturn V. It's only necessary to disagree with them enough to show others, i.e. reasonable people, that it's irrational. To believe the Moon landings were faked requires all the nations of the Earth, especially American enemies such as the USSR and PRC, to either be completely fucking stupid (unlikely) or in on the conspiracy (even more unlikely).

The fact remains irrational people are irrational. Reasoning with them doesn't work. Reason only works with rational people.

I hear ya, but consider when phoenyx joined the debate, he said...

Hello everyone. I'm something of a 9/11 buff (falling on the inside job side of the fence), but I don't mind listening to those who swear that the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) is where it's at, so long as their main goal isn't to insult those who disagree with them.

...only now that the heat is turned up on his conspiracy, he tries to ignore facts he finds inconvenient to his conspiracy.

One of the early responses to his posts was from candycorn who, with a surgeon's precision, summed up phoenyx beautifully...

Well, obviously, the pictures are all form the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11/01. As the evidentiary hearing ZM’s trial attest. It also shows us that no matter what, you’ll just claim that everything presented that contradicts you is made up or doesn’t meet your standard of proof. Hence, there is little reason to try to convince you of anything. Instead, you have convinced us you’re just another cheap 9/11 lunatic twofer with no legs to stand on.

Despite her accuracy, I engaged phoenyx's claims and entertained his links. To his credit, for the most part, he did in kind ....

.... until we got to the Citgo surveillance videos.

Then he buried his head firmly in the sand.

 

[SAYIT]

...I'll let you off this time, you've posted a lot of good posts, and if I put -you- on ignore, the discussion will probably grind to a halt...

You're certainly welcome to ignore me or the points which utterly break the back of your conspiracy, but you do so at your own peril as others here are not as eager to turn a blind's eye to the facts.

The real peril, as I believe Phoenyx sees it, is that once he accepts the preponderance of evidence about "what really happened" on 9/11 his entire house of cards will fall and he will be left with nothing but the unbearable truth that his belief system - his religion if you will - was built on false idols. Only by desperately clinging to it can he avoid jumping out the nearest window.

You're certainly welcome to ignore me or the points which utterly break the back of your conspiracy, but you do so at your own peril as others here are not as eager to turn a blind's eye to the facts... And I've engaged pretty much every angle of your conspiracy claims you've posted. I'd appreciate the same in return.

Dude, you're trying to reason with an irrational person... The fact remains irrational people are irrational. Reasoning with them doesn't work. Reason only works with rational people.

Most of the "Truthers" are simply lame, 9/11 sheeple but the more ambitious were (most have tossed in the towel) seeking fame, glory and profit while others had (and may still be driven by) some hateful agenda that has nothing to do with facts, truth, or even the events of 9/11.

 

[Faun]

Just to clarify...

No need, it's been addressed over and over again. We both know what your point is, we both know that CIT disagrees with your stance on that, and we both know who I trust more. There are -many- pieces of evidence regarding 9/11, and even the Pentaplane flyover, but you choose to go over the one point that I'm not interested in pursuing -.-.

According to you, CIT believes the shadow proves the plane flew north of the Citgo station. You're certainly welcome to believe that but I gotta tell ya.... you're crazy for believing that.

Not you too Faun -.-? I'll let you off this time, you've posted a lot of good posts, and if I put -you- on ignore, the discussion will probably grind to a halt, as I've consistently found that you had the most in depth points- we could actually go on for long stretches without you insulting me or truthers in general. As to this shadow- put simply, I'm not interested in trying to figure out what some grainy pixels mean. CIT looked at it, determined it meant that plane was on the North side, I'll trust their judgement. But there are -tons- of other pieces of evidence that I have looked at in depth. I believe there's a lot of posts of yours in the Pentaplane thread that I haven't yet addressed that have nothing to do with this shadow you seem so fond of. I may be getting back to those points soon.

You're certainly welcome to ignore me or the points which utterly break the back of your conspiracy, but you do so at your own peril as others here are not as eager to turn a blind's eye to the facts.

In the photo below, I've place a red circle representing the general vicinity for where that shadow appeared in the video. I've place a green arrow indicating the general direction of sunlight. These "estimates" are not exact but the shadow did appear south of the Citgo station and though I don't know the exact azimuth angle of the sun at that hour on that day, the sun was still east of the gas station. The plane was about 100' to 150' off the ground.

So if you believe that shadow determines the plane was on the north side of the Citgo, explain how the laws of physics, which dictate the plane would have to be in a direct path between its shadow and the sun, could be north of the Citgo but cast a shadow to the south of it.

And I've engaged pretty much every angle of your conspiracy claims you've posted. I'd appreciate the same in return.

Sigh -.-. You put up a video that alleges to show a shadow. What exact minute/second is the shadow at? Can't believe you've actually got me looking -.-

At 4:41....



Camera #4 shows something fall over as the plane flies by...

At the same time, a shadow appears for a single frame...

 

[Divine Wind]

No need, it's been addressed over and over again. We both know what your point is, we both know that CIT disagrees with your stance on that, and we both know who I trust more. There are -many- pieces of evidence regarding 9/11, and even the Pentaplane flyover, but you choose to go over the one point that I'm not interested in pursuing -.-.

According to you, CIT believes the shadow proves the plane flew north of the Citgo station. You're certainly welcome to believe that but I gotta tell ya.... you're crazy for believing that.

Not you too Faun -.-? I'll let you off this time, you've posted a lot of good posts, and if I put -you- on ignore, the discussion will probably grind to a halt, as I've consistently found that you had the most in depth points- we could actually go on for long stretches without you insulting me or truthers in general. As to this shadow- put simply, I'm not interested in trying to figure out what some grainy pixels mean. CIT looked at it, determined it meant that plane was on the North side, I'll trust their judgement. But there are -tons- of other pieces of evidence that I have looked at in depth. I believe there's a lot of posts of yours in the Pentaplane thread that I haven't yet addressed that have nothing to do with this shadow you seem so fond of. I may be getting back to those points soon.

You're certainly welcome to ignore me or the points which utterly break the back of your conspiracy, but you do so at your own peril as others here are not as eager to turn a blind's eye to the facts.

In the photo below, I've place a red circle representing the general vicinity for where that shadow appeared in the video. I've place a green arrow indicating the general direction of sunlight. These "estimates" are not exact but the shadow did appear south of the Citgo station and though I don't know the exact azimuth angle of the sun at that hour on that day, the sun was still east of the gas station. The plane was about 100' to 150' off the ground.

So if you believe that shadow determines the plane was on the north side of the Citgo, explain how the laws of physics, which dictate the plane would have to be in a direct path between its shadow and the sun, could be north of the Citgo but cast a shadow to the south of it.

And I've engaged pretty much every angle of your conspiracy claims you've posted. I'd appreciate the same in return.

Dude, you're trying to reason with an irrational person.

When discussing with a person who believes the Moon landings were faked, it's not necessary to refute their every complaint nor teach them how to build a Saturn V. It's only necessary to disagree with them enough to show others, i.e. reasonable people, that it's irrational. To believe the Moon landings were faked requires all the nations of the Earth, especially American enemies such as the USSR and PRC, to either be completely fucking stupid (unlikely) or in on the conspiracy (even more unlikely).

The fact remains irrational people are irrational. Reasoning with them doesn't work. Reason only works with rational people.

I hear ya, but consider when phoenyx joined the debate, he said...

Hello everyone. I'm something of a 9/11 buff (falling on the inside job side of the fence), but I don't mind listening to those who swear that the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) is where it's at, so long as their main goal isn't to insult those who disagree with them.

...only now that the heat is turned up on his conspiracy, he tries to ignore facts he finds inconvenient to his conspiracy.

One of the early responses to his posts was from candycorn who, with a surgeon's precision, summed up phoenyx beautifully...

Well, obviously, the pictures are all form the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11/01. As the evidentiary hearing ZM’s trial attest. It also shows us that no matter what, you’ll just claim that everything presented that contradicts you is made up or doesn’t meet your standard of proof. Hence, there is little reason to try to convince you of anything. Instead, you have convinced us you’re just another cheap 9/11 lunatic twofer with no legs to stand on.

Despite her accuracy, I engaged phoenyx's claims and entertained his links. To his credit, for the most part, he did in kind ....

.... until we got to the Citgo surveillance videos.

Then he buried his head firmly in the sand.

The bottom line is nutjobs are mentally ill. Respect them as human beings, but don't give into their madness. Obviously you and I are agreed he's deluded about the facts of 9/11, but mocking and ridiculing a mentally ill person is cruel, not the actions of a sane person seeking to refute the insane ramblings of a nutjob. You and I disagree politically, but we are agreed Bush didn't plant explosives in the WTC and the Pentagon wasn't blown up by the CIA with drone.

 

[phoenyx]

No need, it's been addressed over and over again. We both know what your point is, we both know that CIT disagrees with your stance on that, and we both know who I trust more. There are -many- pieces of evidence regarding 9/11, and even the Pentaplane flyover, but you choose to go over the one point that I'm not interested in pursuing -.-.

According to you, CIT believes the shadow proves the plane flew north of the Citgo station. You're certainly welcome to believe that but I gotta tell ya.... you're crazy for believing that.

Not you too Faun -.-? I'll let you off this time, you've posted a lot of good posts, and if I put -you- on ignore, the discussion will probably grind to a halt, as I've consistently found that you had the most in depth points- we could actually go on for long stretches without you insulting me or truthers in general. As to this shadow- put simply, I'm not interested in trying to figure out what some grainy pixels mean. CIT looked at it, determined it meant that plane was on the North side, I'll trust their judgement. But there are -tons- of other pieces of evidence that I have looked at in depth. I believe there's a lot of posts of yours in the Pentaplane thread that I haven't yet addressed that have nothing to do with this shadow you seem so fond of. I may be getting back to those points soon.

You're certainly welcome to ignore me or the points which utterly break the back of your conspiracy, but you do so at your own peril as others here are not as eager to turn a blind's eye to the facts.

In the photo below, I've place a red circle representing the general vicinity for where that shadow appeared in the video. I've place a green arrow indicating the general direction of sunlight. These "estimates" are not exact but the shadow did appear south of the Citgo station and though I don't know the exact azimuth angle of the sun at that hour on that day, the sun was still east of the gas station. The plane was about 100' to 150' off the ground.

So if you believe that shadow determines the plane was on the north side of the Citgo, explain how the laws of physics, which dictate the plane would have to be in a direct path between its shadow and the sun, could be north of the Citgo but cast a shadow to the south of it.

And I've engaged pretty much every angle of your conspiracy claims you've posted. I'd appreciate the same in return.

Sigh -.-. You put up a video that alleges to show a shadow. What exact minute/second is the shadow at? Can't believe you've actually got me looking -.-

At 4:41....



Camera #4 shows something fall over as the plane flies by...

At the same time, a shadow appears for a single frame...

I looked at 4:41, as well as before and after. I saw what looked like a flash at 4:45, but no shadow. Not sure which one is camera 4, that might be part of me not seeing this thing...