911 Pentagon - 757 or cruise missile???

[phoenyx]

Sigh. Wildcard had just put up some pictures explaining how the piece of scrap metal found on the pentagon lawn couldn't have been from a 757. I've also been putting up post after post with tons of evidence showing that the plane hitting the Pentagon couldn't have been a 757, which I -know- you've noticed, because you've been responding to those very posts -.-...

No, what Wildcard did was speculate a piece of the plane could not have come from flight #77 because in his estimation, the white trim on the lettering was too small.

That in no way, shape, or form, proves it did not come from flight #77. That you claim such silly eyeballing of the lettering equates to that piece of a plane "couldn't" have come from flight #77 only serves to undermine you credibility.

By the way... the width of the lettering matches perfectly.

Sigh -.-. You're confusing shape with size. You can photoshop a mountain to fit into someone's mouth and look like a tooth, it doesn't mean the mountain was that person's tooth. Now, I'm not an airplane mechanic, but one thing to consider- doesn't that piece of metal look awfully thin to belong to a 757? And why did it survive when the engines didn't?

Now take a look at this alleged piece of 757 debris:

Again, mighty small and thin pieces of debris, don't you think? Another thing, notice how even Terry Morin admits he thought the plane was a 737, not a 757 when he first saw it? A 737 is a somewhat smaller plane. Something to consider at any rate.

 

[phoenyx]

As for the al Qaeda opinion of Moussaoui, the article further states:
Zacarias Moussaoui was a clown who could not keep his mouth shut, according to his old al-Qaida boss, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Yep, I saw that. Let's not forget the fact that Mohammed -was- waterboarded 183 times though, so his testimony is highly suspect.

Your response is a typically lame attempt to change the subject because you were caught posting a Truther "fact" in an earlier lame attempt to diminish the significance of Moussaoui's conviction.

I said I was surprised that Mohammed was apparently not tortured, and I moved on. You, on the other hand, want to dwell on it for some unknown reason. Also, is this what you are referring to as a 'truther fact'?

...In fact, I have little doubt that when attempting to dismiss Moussaoui's conviction in the future, you will use the same "fact" in the hope no one notices.

My guess? You've used it before and when its veracity was challenged you posted a similar obfuscation.

It's a good thing I don't go wild with speculation myself, or we'd never discuss the actual evidence -.-. Now if you're done speculating as to what I may do in the future, let's move on...

There is nothing new in any of your arguments

Never said there was. The issue shouldn't be whether my arguments are new, but whether they have merit.

and, as already explained, they have been beaten to death (and soundly discredited)...

You sound just like 9/11 was an inside job right now, just on the other side of the fence. It's tiring. If you don't find the discussion interesting, by all means, leave it.

If you applied the same cynical eye to your alternate universe you'd either go stark raving mad (see: 9/11InsideJob, Dale Smith) attempting to suppress the truth about it or you'd quit the Movement in disgust like Mike Metzger (co-founder of 9/11 Truth UAlbany):

Confessions of an Ex-Truther: Letter of Resignation (Scroll Down for Newer Posts)

Ah, another "truther" I'd never heard about. Personally, I'm more interested in discussing the evidence.

 

[phoenyx]

Charlie was on a first name basis with 9/11 CT royalty and much revered in the 9/11 CT world

I don't agree. I've been part of the CT community for a long time. The only time I had even heard of him was when the mainstream media picked up on him. Do you have any well known names for those who allegedly "revered" him?

Evidently you didn't read the article:

...Then, there were the women. “I could have anyone. And there’s a lot of cute activist girls in Holland and Denmark.”

Sorry, but Charlie saying that Charlie was awesome doesn't persuade me.

Thrillingly, he was courted by his heroes, Jones and David Icke, the former television sports presenter who believes humanity is being controlled by alien lizards.

Never been much of a fan of Icke. As to Alex Jones, he has some good stuff on his site, and then he's also got some awful stuff. Really disappointed he's going for Trump. Seeing as he thought Trump was good, I can see how he'd think Charlie was good too. I'm sure he regrets it now, and I imagine he'll regret going for Trump if he gets elected. This is all assuming that the article you're quoting is actually factual.

“It was like being a struggling actor and Tom Cruise phones you,” he says. Jones invited him on to his internet show Prison Planet and praised his “great work”. Veitch interviewed Icke outside parliament just after the 2010 general election, and in return was sent a birthday present of a T-shirt and a book, signed, “To Charles, a great man doing great things. Love David”. Veitch was now a well-known figure in the conspiracy community. But, while some believers could be dismissed as harmless crackpots, there was a malevolent undercurrent to many of the theories...

Yes, some of conspiracy theories are definitely messed up. As is Veitch himself.

 

[phoenyx]

From your video at 19:00

Witness Terry Morin says the plane flew right over him at the Navy Annex ... that's right off of 395 and south of the service station.

True. That being said, it's still too far north to concord with the NTSB flight path. Here's a graphic that includes all of the witnesses interviewed on location by CIT, as well as Terry Morin's testimony. Terry wasn't interviewed on location but he was interviewed by CIT over the phone and he described where he was and where the airplane was in relation to him, as can be seen from 19:00 and on in the video as you say. Now for the graphic. Terry's viewpoint is close to where the diamond is close to where the diamond is in the text "Navy Annex".

For reference, the following picture shows where 395 and the Columbia Pike is...

Nope, not too far to the north. Going by Terry Morin's observation, it could very well have been on the path which took it out the lamp posts. Red line is mine...

If Terry Morin was the only witness, it may well have been able to go south again towards the light poles. He wasn't though; the lines that continue from the Navy Annex detail what the -other- witnesses saw. Furthermore, there is another very important point- the NTSB flight path, allegedly based on AA77's Black Box Flight Recorder, never goes over the Navy Annex at all. Your red line is already "out of line" as it were with the NTSB's data. On the other hand, it may concord with the 9/11 Commission Report's data, so you can atleast go with -one- of the 2 official narratives ...

A little video on AA77's flight path, which mainly focuses on the NTSB's flight path allegedly originating from AA77's Black Box (which does not concord with Terry Morin's testimony) can be seen here:

 

[phoenyx]

Basically, you're being [insult removed]. And you obviously know this...

Never argue with someone who knows they are right -.-...

 

[phoenyx]

And did the editors source all of the words to make sure they are spelled that way or they mean what you think they mean?

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to follow you down this rabbit hole. It's just too dull -.-

And now you recognize why nobody follows you into your "rabbit hole" where pictures are falsified, prosecutorial misconduct and "I heard"

Ofcourse, no one believes what I believe. Go celebrate your victory candy ;-)...

 

[phoenyx]

Well then go ahead and explain the wheel hub found.

CHOSEN PHOTOSHOPPING

So you declare suppositions supporting your position to be authoritative while evidence destroying it is falsified?

How about providing some evidence that that wheel hub came from somewhere other then an anonymous poster looking to annoy those who disagree with the official story? Below is a quote from Rob Balsamo, a seasoned ex pilot and cofounder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth. He made a thread regarding the wheel hub here:
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Wheel Hub at Pentagon

I'll paste a bit of what I believe is the most relevant portion of his text here:
"[T]hese pictures are not on any govt site to support the official story. They were taken by an anonymous photographer and were never matched via serial numbers with mx logs. At least.. i haven't found any reports.. nor has Col George Nelson (ret USAF)."

 

[Faun]

Sigh -.-. You bring up 3 highly dubious witness accounts, and I mention the fact that they are highly dubious. For simply pointing out their dubiousness, you have therefore concluded that "everything presented that contradicts you is made up or doesn’t meet your standard of proof."

Have you ever considered the alternative? That everything I and others present that contradicts the official story doesn't meet -your- standard of proof?

Well you did behave exactly as candycorn predicted you would.

And how is that, exactly? Also, would you mind answering the questions above this time?

Well candycorn said, "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," and that is precisely what you've done.

No, that's exactly what -candycorn- has done. She has determined that the evidence I have provided isn't plausible, and therefore I'm wrong . You, atleast, are seeing the videos I've provided and commenting on specific witnesses, such as Terry Morin. You may have not really understood the implications of what he said in the video, but I can help make such implications clear in followup.

What I've seen is candycorn ask you three questions:

• Explain The wreckage from AA77 was found at (and inside) the Pentagon.
• Explain The ATC tracking of AA77 shows it entering the airspace but not leaving it.
• Explain What caused the five downed light poles at the Pentagon on 9/11/01.

First one you dismissed as the wreckage is staged. Second one I don't believe you responded to. Last one you claim was staged.

And again, at the risk of belaboring this intuitive point...

"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,"

I'm still waiting to hear your response to the wheel hub found at the crash site. I showed you a photo of that piece of wreckage alongside that of how it would have looked prior to the crash. You didn't respond.

I hadn't yet responded to that post because I hadn't yet gotten to it. I almost always respond to posts chronologically. This post of mine you were responding to was post 257. In post 257, I was responding to post 245. The post you're referring to was 248. I got to it in post 262. If I haven't yet responded to a particular post of yours, see what post I was responding to in my last post. If it's before the one you're awaiting a response for, you'll know the probable reason why.

As far as your question ... I have yet to see evidence the official account is false.

In other words, you believe that the evidence against the official story doesn't meet -your- standard of proof, no?

No, I meant what I said. You've not presented any evidence to prove the official account is false. All you've done is attempt to inject doubt into it (claiming evidence was planted, England is lying, some witnesses recall events somewhat different from others, etc...) but nothing discounts the official narrative.

All I see from your side is conjecture

I could say the same for much of the official narrative.

and questions.

Do you not have any questions concerning the official narrative?

Conjecture which doesn't add up

According to you...

and questions designed to inject doubt into the official story.

When responding to you, I generally design my questions to get you to ponder whether the official narrative is actually true, yes. I think it's the most effective approach to use; to ponder Mark Twain's old line:
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

Even worse for you... there are some certifiable nuts on your side who make twoofers look absolutely batshit insane. I'm not saying that of you, but folks like 7forever, 9/11 inside job, Dale Smith, et al., aren't doing folks like you any favors.

Judging from Dale's response to this post of yours, as well as other responses to various posts of yours and others from your side of the fence, it seems that the feeling is mutual. I try my best to steer clear of the name calling and insults; I don't see how it helps anything, and enough of it can paralyze any meaningful discussion.

Meanwhile, I see the official story as far more plausible than any other account I've heard.

Ofcourse, which is why you believe it . I believe alternative narratives because I believe -they- are more plausible. What a person believes concerning 9/11 is just one more set of beliefs, along other sets such as political affiliation and religion (or lack thereof). I don't know about others, but I come to forums to try to explain why I believe what I believe, learn why others believe other things, and see if there's a way that we can come to agreements on these differing beliefs.

So? You believe what you believe and I believe what I believe ... so what?

 

[SAYIT]

As for the al Qaeda opinion of Moussaoui, the article further states:
Zacarias Moussaoui was a clown who could not keep his mouth shut, according to his old al-Qaida boss, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Yep, I saw that. Let's not forget the fact that Mohammed -was- waterboarded 183 times though, so his testimony is highly suspect.

Your response is a typically lame attempt to change the subject because you were caught posting a Truther "fact" in an earlier lame attempt to diminish the significance of Moussaoui's conviction.

I said I was surprised that Mohammed was apparently not tortured, and I moved on. You, on the other hand, want to dwell on it for some unknown reason. Also, is this what you are referring to as a 'truther fact'?

Which, of course, didn't keep you from claiming he was tortured but not only was your assumption incorrect, Moussaoui was so impressed with America's justice system he felt compelled to express his admiration.

As for the al Qaeda opinion of Moussaoui, the article further states:
Zacarias Moussaoui was a clown who could not keep his mouth shut, according to his old al-Qaida boss, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Yep, I saw that. Let's not forget the fact that Mohammed -was- waterboarded 183 times though, so his testimony is highly suspect.

Your response is a typically lame attempt to change the subject because you were caught posting a Truther "fact" in an earlier lame attempt to diminish the significance of Moussaoui's conviction.

I said I was surprised that Mohammed was apparently not tortured, and I moved on. You, on the other hand, want to dwell on it for some unknown reason. Also, is this what you are referring to as a 'truther fact'?

...In fact, I have little doubt that when attempting to dismiss Moussaoui's conviction in the future, you will use the same "fact" in the hope no one notices.

My guess? You've used it before and when its veracity was challenged you posted a similar obfuscation.

It's a good thing I don't go wild with speculation myself, or we'd never discuss the actual evidence -.-. Now if you're done speculating as to what I may do in the future, let's move on...

There is nothing new in any of your arguments

Never said there was. The issue shouldn't be whether my arguments are new, but whether they have merit.

Now you are being obtuse (but I guess you must or your house of cards collapses).

I already told you the "facts" you are posting are not just old, they have been thoroughly thrashed, bashed, trashed and otherwise discredited on 100 other threads here. While I give props to Faun and Candy for having the patience to once again point out that your Truther "facts" are a collection of half-truths, misinformation and outright fabrications there is no way in hell I would waste my time doing so. Feel free to ignore the reality of your Movement but as Mike Metzger, co-founder of 9/11Truth UAlbany noted on his way out the door: "Loose Change, 9/11 Mysteries, Alex Jones, and all the other kooks out there are ******* lying about, distorting, and misrepresenting the facts to further their personal agendas. And what is their agenda, you ask? Money, in the words of Shaggy 2 Dope, 'mutha fuckin ***** ass money.' Not only are they desecrating 3,000 graves, but they are profiting off of it.".

 

[SAYIT]

And did the editors source all of the words to make sure they are spelled that way or they mean what you think they mean?

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to follow you down this rabbit hole. It's just too dull -.-

And now you recognize why nobody follows you into your "rabbit hole" where pictures are falsified, prosecutorial misconduct and "I heard"

Of course, no one believes what I believe. Go celebrate your victory candy ;-)...

That's not quite accurate but the 9/11InsideJobs and Dale Smiths (and a who's who of paranoid and anti-Semitic loons) agree with you. So maybe, just maybe, you are barking up the wrong tree.

 

[phoenyx]

Sigh -.-. You bring up 3 highly dubious witness accounts, and I mention the fact that they are highly dubious. For simply pointing out their dubiousness, you have therefore concluded that "everything presented that contradicts you is made up or doesn’t meet your standard of proof."

Have you ever considered the alternative? That everything I and others present that contradicts the official story doesn't meet -your- standard of proof?

Well you did behave exactly as candycorn predicted you would.

And how is that, exactly? Also, would you mind answering the questions above this time?

Well candycorn said, "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," and that is precisely what you've done.

No, that's exactly what -candycorn- has done. She has determined that the evidence I have provided isn't plausible, and therefore I'm wrong . You, atleast, are seeing the videos I've provided and commenting on specific witnesses, such as Terry Morin. You may have not really understood the implications of what he said in the video, but I can help make such implications clear in followup.

What I've seen is candycorn ask you three questions:

• Explain The wreckage from AA77 was found at (and inside) the Pentagon.
• Explain The ATC tracking of AA77 shows it entering the airspace but not leaving it.
• Explain What caused the five downed light poles at the Pentagon on 9/11/01.

First one you dismissed as the wreckage is staged.

The first one, in some instances, I asked to see evidence that the wreckage was really there, or just someone who likes to yank the chain of truthers. The wheel hub comes to mind.

Second one I don't believe you responded to.

I responded (I've now responded to every post sent my way as far as I know), but I'm not going to go digging to find where I did it. Essentially, I said that -some- type of aircraft may have exploded in pentagon airspace, but it wasn't a AA77, or even a 757, and it didn't knock down the light poles or cause the damage to the Pentagon.

Last one you claim was staged.

Yes, and I laid out a lot of evidence as to why I believe that's the case.

And again, at the risk of belaboring this intuitive point...

"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,"

Why don't you discuss the evidence I've presented? Saying that you're right and I'm wrong isn't going to get us anywhere.

As far as your question ... I have yet to see evidence the official account is false.

In other words, you believe that the evidence against the official story doesn't meet -your- standard of proof, no?

No, I meant what I said.

Look, we clearly disagree as to what constitutes evidence. Could we atleast discuss what -I- believe is evidence that the official story is false? There's lots of it that you haven't yet responded to. Should I enumerate all the posts of mine that you have yet to respond to? That's not even going into all the -points- that you've probably not responded to in posts that you may have responded to in part...

You've not presented any evidence to prove the official account is false.

I never said I could prove anything to you. Do you honestly think you can prove the official story is true to me? This is about discussing evidence and what is most plausible. Right now, we can't even agree what constitutes -evidence-, so I think we should just settle for discussing what -you- think is evidence, and discussing what -I- think is evidence, and seeing as to why we agree that our 'evidence' is better then our opponent's.

All you've done is attempt to inject doubt into it (claiming evidence was planted, England is lying, some witnesses recall events somewhat different from others, etc...) but nothing discounts the official narrative.

Why can't you accept that not everyone thinks like you do? I and many others have a strong belief that the evidence that the official story is a sham is overwhelming. I can accept that you don't feel that way. Because of your beliefs, I "inject doubt" as you say, because I know that going beyond simply -suggesting- that your beliefs are mistaken would lead to a breakdown in communication. Why can't you simply do the same with -my- beliefs? And why not atleast -acknowledge- the fact that Lloyd England -could- be lying, and that CIT has amassed a substantial amount of witnesses, many filmed at the location where they saw an airplane approach the pentagon, and they corroborate a flight path that flew north of the Citgo gas station?

Meanwhile, I see the official story as far more plausible than any other account I've heard.

Ofcourse, which is why you believe it . I believe alternative narratives because I believe -they- are more plausible. What a person believes concerning 9/11 is just one more set of beliefs, along other sets such as political affiliation and religion (or lack thereof). I don't know about others, but I come to forums to try to explain why I believe what I believe, learn why others believe other things, and see if there's a way that we can come to agreements on these differing beliefs.

So? You believe what you believe and I believe what I believe ... so what?

I'm just trying to point out that we both believe that our version of events is more plausible. That should be obvious, so there's no need for you to bring it up. I think the point of discussing this at all is to see why we disagree. Don't you?

 

[phoenyx]

And did the editors source all of the words to make sure they are spelled that way or they mean what you think they mean?

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to follow you down this rabbit hole. It's just too dull -.-

And now you recognize why nobody follows you into your "rabbit hole" where pictures are falsified, prosecutorial misconduct and "I heard"

Of course, no one believes what I believe. Go celebrate your victory candy ;-)...

That's not quite accurate but the 9/11InsideJobs and Dale Smiths (and a who's who of paranoid and anti-Semitic loons) agree with you. So maybe, just maybe, you are barking up the wrong tree.

Don't you guys ever get tired of Rule #5 -.-? In case you missed it:
**5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.**

Source: Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist) by H. Michael Sweeney

If you don't want to discuss the evidence, why participate in this conversation?

 

[SAYIT]

And did the editors source all of the words to make sure they are spelled that way or they mean what you think they mean?

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to follow you down this rabbit hole. It's just too dull -.-

And now you recognize why nobody follows you into your "rabbit hole" where pictures are falsified, prosecutorial misconduct and "I heard"

Of course, no one believes what I believe. Go celebrate your victory candy ;-)...

That's not quite accurate but the 9/11InsideJobs and Dale Smiths (and a who's who of paranoid and anti-Semitic loons) agree with you. So maybe, just maybe, you are barking up the wrong tree.

Don't you guys ever get tired of Rule #5 -.-? In case you missed it:
**5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.**

Source: Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist) by H. Michael Sweeney

If you don't want to discuss the evidence, why participate in this conversation?

I don't care about your rules and if you were truly interested in the truth you would peruse any of the 100 other threads on the subject here. All that you post has been thoroughly vetted and discredited. That you may want to play-it-again-Sam is all well and good but you'll have to put up with my sniping as I've had enough of holier-than-thou-jackasses who believe they have found some fountain of truth.

 

[phoenyx]

I said I was surprised that Mohammed was apparently not tortured, and I moved on. You, on the other hand, want to dwell on it for some unknown reason. Also, is this what you are referring to as a 'truther fact'?

Which, of course, didn't keep you from claiming he was tortured

Reminds me of what Jon Stewart said once. Fox News can be wrong 100 times, but the one time that -he- says something that's uncorroborated, it's the end of the world -.-

but not only was your assumption incorrect, Moussaoui was so impressed with America's justice system he felt compelled to express his admiration.

And you, ofcourse, believe Moussaoui's word in this case unconditionally since it favours your own point of view -.-. He said a lot of -other- things too, things that did -not- paint the U.S. court system in such a favourable light, but I see you are willing to overlook those statements.

There is nothing new in any of your arguments

Never said there was. The issue shouldn't be whether my arguments are new, but whether they have merit.

Now you are being obtuse

I'd say you're the one who doesn't get it. What does it matter if the arguments are new if they have merit? Think about it for a little bit.

I already told you the "facts" you are posting are not just old, they have been thoroughly thrashed, bashed, trashed and otherwise discredited on 100 other threads here.

Ah, SAYIT has spoken. Well, you know what they say: never argue with someone who knows they're right

[insults removed]

Seriously, why are you even bothering? If you're not here to discuss the evidence, you are definitely wasting your time, and mine.

 

[Faun]

And there's the reason normal sane people laugh at twoofers.

You post that as though that's as big of a hole as the plane made in the Pentagon, in a failed attempt to show a plane as big as a 757 could not have possibly hit the Pentagon for such a plane would surely have created far more damage than that relatively little hole.

But it's not the only hole. That's actually the hole punctured through the C-ring, the third ring into the Pentagon...

Are you lucid enough to comprehend what that means?? Probably not, so I'll be happy to explain it to you... The outer ring, which took the brunt of the hit, is the E-ring The plane smashed into it with such force that parts of the plane penetrated the E-ring, the D-ring, and then ultimately, the C-ring (which is the picture you posted). The E-ring, where flight #77 first struck, suffered catastrophic damage, ultimately leading to its collapse. But before it fell, we can see the massive damage the plane caused...

You may now proceed with your paranoid delusions....

 

[Faun]

Regarding the light pole in England's vehicle... no amount of research can be performed to prove it didn't happen as .r. England said it did.

And -I'm- the one accused of dismissing evidence -.-?? Despite your blind faith in your OCT religion, I'm here to inform you that yes, things can be proven even if you don't think they can be.

Ok.... if you think it can be proven that the pole could not have pierced the windshield without hitting the hood -- prove it.

I never said that I could personally prove it. I'm just saying that your notion that "no amount of research can be performed to prove it didn't happen" depends on 2 premises which -you- have certainly not proven:
1- That things the light poles were knocked down as narrated by the official story and
2- Assuming they were not knocked down as narrated by the official story, that there is no research done or that will be done in the future that could prove that this was the case.

If you can prove either of these, you'll have a case. Otherwise, you're simply speculating and passing it off as fact.

There's nothing in this regard I feel obligated to prove. All of the circumstantial evidence conveniently falls in Lloyd England's favor. In my view because he's telling the truth. There were 5 poles knocked down, he claims one speared his car. You have no evidence other than your imagination to prove he's lying. The damage to his vehicle is consistent with his account. The windshield was smashed in. His dash appears dented in the middle where he claims it rested and there's damage to the back seat where the tip could have wedged, holding the back end up off of the hood. I admit it's strange that his first thought was to remove it when an explosion just occurred at the Pentagon and the building was ablaze; but I don't account for such strange behavior in others like that since I have no ******* clue what was going through the man's mind at the moment. Especially given how close he had just come to being impaled and could only thank G-d at that moment that he could remove the pole as opposed to being decapitated by it.

His word his golden. Yours? Not so much. Don't take it personal ... he was there. You weren't. He experienced it. You didn't.

 

[Faun]

Let me get this straight.... you don't trust the government ...

That's right. Do you?

I trust those who make the most sense. The government, while their account does not appear to be 100% accurate; is far more believable than the variety of twoofer accounts. Which span from a missile hit it, to a military plane hit it while flight #77 cleared over the Pentagon, to bombs were planted inside, to passengers from flight #77 were taken elsewhere and possibly killed. All sorts of wide-eyed stories when the official story is most plausible and most consistent with the surviving evidence.

but when you're presented with evidence of a plane crash from a site where a plane crashed,

What evidence do you have that that picture of a wheel hub actually came from the Pentagon?

I actually could show you but I feel we're at the point -- there is no point. In the vein of candycorn's pre-determined wisdom, no matter what I show you, you will just bounce to your next excuse denial. You don't accept pretty much anything I can show you and likewise, I don't accept pretty much anything you have shown.

So you won't accept evidence from the government

I won't -blindly- accept evidence from the government, no. But I will certainly examine it. After all, if it's coming from the government, it's an entity that can be held to account for lying. How are you going to hold some anonymous photographer to account? You don't even know who they are.

No one is asking you to? We're showing you evidence that was recovered. It's obviously your decision what you will or will not believe. Personally, when I see plane parts scattered at the scene of a purported plane crash and I see damage to a building somewhat resembling the shape of a plane and I see an image that appears to be said plane which also matches the description from many witnesses .... I believe the government's version over that of twoofers. And not because it's the government. I'm well aware that the government lies, misinforms, etc... but because their's is the only account consistent with logic and sound reasoning.

 

[Faun]

Sigh. Wildcard had just put up some pictures explaining how the piece of scrap metal found on the pentagon lawn couldn't have been from a 757. I've also been putting up post after post with tons of evidence showing that the plane hitting the Pentagon couldn't have been a 757, which I -know- you've noticed, because you've been responding to those very posts -.-...

No, what Wildcard did was speculate a piece of the plane could not have come from flight #77 because in his estimation, the white trim on the lettering was too small.

That in no way, shape, or form, proves it did not come from flight #77. That you claim such silly eyeballing of the lettering equates to that piece of a plane "couldn't" have come from flight #77 only serves to undermine you credibility.

By the way... the width of the lettering matches perfectly.

Sigh -.-. You're confusing shape with size. You can photoshop a mountain to fit into someone's mouth and look like a tooth, it doesn't mean the mountain was that person's tooth. Now, I'm not an airplane mechanic, but one thing to consider- doesn't that piece of metal look awfully thin to belong to a 757? And why did it survive when the engines didn't?

Now take a look at this alleged piece of 757 debris:

Again, mighty small and thin pieces of debris, don't you think? Another thing, notice how even Terry Morin admits he thought the plane was a 737, not a 757 when he first saw it? A 737 is a somewhat smaller plane. Something to consider at any rate.

While you're questioning the thickness of the plane parts, you're posting the same photo that Wildcard posted earlier, which attempts to cast doubt on the thickness of the white trim painted around the red lettering.

And because anything can be photoshopped, I posted the photo I showed earlier which lines up the rivets from the piece found above with a 757. The result of this is to demonstrate the size of the two are equally matched; and when they are lined up, the white trim appears to be the perfect width. And keep in mind, the photo I posted was made by a twoofer trying to show how that piece actually originated from the starboard side of the plane.

Now that you've been shown the meme above about the white trim is false, you then switch to the flimsiness of that plane piece. Given the outer shell of a plane is aluminum and that plane had just smashed into a solid building at no less than 400 mph, I'm not certain what you expect to find? But you do point out that you're not an airplane mechanic, so hopefully you have some comparison photos you can share which demonstrates just how thick the outer shell of a 757 should be, in your estimation....

 

[Faun]

From your video at 19:00

Witness Terry Morin says the plane flew right over him at the Navy Annex ... that's right off of 395 and south of the service station.

True. That being said, it's still too far north to concord with the NTSB flight path. Here's a graphic that includes all of the witnesses interviewed on location by CIT, as well as Terry Morin's testimony. Terry wasn't interviewed on location but he was interviewed by CIT over the phone and he described where he was and where the airplane was in relation to him, as can be seen from 19:00 and on in the video as you say. Now for the graphic. Terry's viewpoint is close to where the diamond is close to where the diamond is in the text "Navy Annex".

For reference, the following picture shows where 395 and the Columbia Pike is...

Nope, not too far to the north. Going by Terry Morin's observation, it could very well have been on the path which took it out the lamp posts. Red line is mine...

If Terry Morin was the only witness, it may well have been able to go south again towards the light poles. He wasn't though; the lines that continue from the Navy Annex detail what the -other- witnesses saw. Furthermore, there is another very important point- the NTSB flight path, allegedly based on AA77's Black Box Flight Recorder, never goes over the Navy Annex at all. Your red line is already "out of line" as it were with the NTSB's data. On the other hand, it may concord with the 9/11 Commission Report's data, so you can atleast go with -one- of the 2 official narratives ...

A little video on AA77's flight path, which mainly focuses on the NTSB's flight path allegedly originating from AA77's Black Box (which does not concord with Terry Morin's testimony) can be seen here:

Again, I'm neither swayed by CIT nor the government, but what makes the most sense. CIT showed some witnesses who claim the plane went north of the Citco, but those were all recollections from years later. I haven't found any from 9.11 to say that. Not that they don't exist. I clearly have not heard every account given from that day; but I haven't hear any say the plane was north of the Citco. And I don't believe CIT's 2006 version where they only showed witnesses who claim they saw the plane fly north of the gas station. I know there are some who say it flew up 395. I totally get that many witness can see the exact same event but recall details differently, but CIT would lead one to believe that all the witnesses who gave a location for the plane, put it north of the Citco. Very dishonest of them, in my opinion.

So what did I do to come up with that red line? I took the position of Terry Morin as he described his location and CIT showed; and the proximity of the plane to his position... which had the right wing to some degree, over, but not south of, Columbia Pike. That puts the fuselage somewhere near the southern end of the Annex. Only one of the paths they show even have the plane traveling over the southern end of the Navy Annex; but even that one takes an impossible jog to the northeast before making a sharp turn to the east...

... and here's where CIT's claims blow in the wind like dust ...

_____________________________​

EVERY path CIT plots has flight #77 striking the Pentagon at, or very close to, a perpendicular angle. Now you can make up all the shit you want about Lloyd's cab, the light poles, whatever; but what you can't make up is physics. Once that plane struck the Pentagon, most of the debris will continue in a straight line. Sure, some may bounce around, some may deflect off of hard objects, but most will continue straight.... Given that (and I can't imagine you could lucidly disagree with that) ... we need only look at the direction the debris took to see what angle the plane hit the Pentagon ... and was absolutely, without any doubt -- not perpendicular. Not only is the debris field scattered at an angle going into the Pentagon, the the length of damage to the Pentagon caused by the port wing is longer than the damage caused by the starboard wing; yet more evidence the plane entered at a fairly steep angle; whereas one would expect the damage by the wings to be even on either side had flight #77 struck the Pentagon at, or close to, a 90º angle. Note, where the plane entered the E-ring and debris from it penetrated the C-ring...

For CIT to claim the plane went straight into the building, in my opinion, is at best, wrong; at worst, they're just flat out lying.

Which brings me back to why I believe the government's version over that of CIT or any other twoofer.

So considering the angle flight #77 flew into the Pentagon; and given Terry Morin's claim it flew over the southern side of the Navy Annex (which runs along side of 395, matching several other eyewitness accounts given ON 9.11, and given the downed light poles, I see the red line I drew as a very real possibility of the flight's doomed path. It's like a puzzle and all of the pieces fit.

 

[Faun]

Well you did behave exactly as candycorn predicted you would.

And how is that, exactly? Also, would you mind answering the questions above this time?

Well candycorn said, "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," and that is precisely what you've done.

No, that's exactly what -candycorn- has done. She has determined that the evidence I have provided isn't plausible, and therefore I'm wrong . You, atleast, are seeing the videos I've provided and commenting on specific witnesses, such as Terry Morin. You may have not really understood the implications of what he said in the video, but I can help make such implications clear in followup.

What I've seen is candycorn ask you three questions:

• Explain The wreckage from AA77 was found at (and inside) the Pentagon.
• Explain The ATC tracking of AA77 shows it entering the airspace but not leaving it.
• Explain What caused the five downed light poles at the Pentagon on 9/11/01.

First one you dismissed as the wreckage is staged.

The first one, in some instances, I asked to see evidence that the wreckage was really there, or just someone who likes to yank the chain of truthers. The wheel hub comes to mind.

Second one I don't believe you responded to.

I responded (I've now responded to every post sent my way as far as I know), but I'm not going to go digging to find where I did it. Essentially, I said that -some- type of aircraft may have exploded in pentagon airspace, but it wasn't a AA77, or even a 757, and it didn't knock down the light poles or cause the damage to the Pentagon.

Last one you claim was staged.

Yes, and I laid out a lot of evidence as to why I believe that's the case.

And again, at the risk of belaboring this intuitive point...

"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,"

Why don't you discuss the evidence I've presented? Saying that you're right and I'm wrong isn't going to get us anywhere.

As far as your question ... I have yet to see evidence the official account is false.

In other words, you believe that the evidence against the official story doesn't meet -your- standard of proof, no?

No, I meant what I said.

Look, we clearly disagree as to what constitutes evidence. Could we atleast discuss what -I- believe is evidence that the official story is false? There's lots of it that you haven't yet responded to. Should I enumerate all the posts of mine that you have yet to respond to? That's not even going into all the -points- that you've probably not responded to in posts that you may have responded to in part...

You've not presented any evidence to prove the official account is false.

I never said I could prove anything to you. Do you honestly think you can prove the official story is true to me? This is about discussing evidence and what is most plausible. Right now, we can't even agree what constitutes -evidence-, so I think we should just settle for discussing what -you- think is evidence, and discussing what -I- think is evidence, and seeing as to why we agree that our 'evidence' is better then our opponent's.

All you've done is attempt to inject doubt into it (claiming evidence was planted, England is lying, some witnesses recall events somewhat different from others, etc...) but nothing discounts the official narrative.

Why can't you accept that not everyone thinks like you do? I and many others have a strong belief that the evidence that the official story is a sham is overwhelming. I can accept that you don't feel that way. Because of your beliefs, I "inject doubt" as you say, because I know that going beyond simply -suggesting- that your beliefs are mistaken would lead to a breakdown in communication. Why can't you simply do the same with -my- beliefs? And why not atleast -acknowledge- the fact that Lloyd England -could- be lying, and that CIT has amassed a substantial amount of witnesses, many filmed at the location where they saw an airplane approach the pentagon, and they corroborate a flight path that flew north of the Citgo gas station?

Meanwhile, I see the official story as far more plausible than any other account I've heard.

Ofcourse, which is why you believe it . I believe alternative narratives because I believe -they- are more plausible. What a person believes concerning 9/11 is just one more set of beliefs, along other sets such as political affiliation and religion (or lack thereof). I don't know about others, but I come to forums to try to explain why I believe what I believe, learn why others believe other things, and see if there's a way that we can come to agreements on these differing beliefs.

So? You believe what you believe and I believe what I believe ... so what?

I'm just trying to point out that we both believe that our version of events is more plausible. That should be obvious, so there's no need for you to bring it up. I think the point of discussing this at all is to see why we disagree. Don't you?

What "evidence" do you have? All I have noticed from you is suggestions and supposition. That is not evidence -- that's imagination.

You have no evidence Lloyd's cab was parked offroad with the damage pre-arranged; and then placed, along with a light pole, on a highway. You have no evidence that any of the other poles where staged. You have no evidence that any of the plane's debris was planted or photoshopped.You have no evidence the plane flew at, or near, a 90º angle into the Pentagon. You have no evidence for what happened to the actual passengers of flight #77 if they didn't perish on that unbelievably horrifying flight.

But you do have your imagination, I'll grant you that.