911 Pentagon - 757 or cruise missile???

[hadit]

And now you see why most Twoofers don’t want to go anywhere near physical evidence. In my mind, as they are no doubt reading this…as the smoke from their joints disappears and the dim lights of momma’s basement illuminates their waaaaay aftermarket screens…I can see Dale and that 9/11 inside job dope screaming “Don’t go full retard” at Feenix here…..

CIT (Phoenix’s messiah) had dubbed Mr. England as “The First Accomplice” http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=10

While Phoenix has treaded very lightly into divulging just how sick and twisted the plot is in his mind, eventually he’d get there. Lets move him there now; shall we? Good.

You can see from his writing below, that is where he is going. Because he has to debunk Mr. England since it blows his asinine theory out of the water. And you see him trying to do that below.

This right here has always kept me questioning Lloyde's account, I mean why would he even try to remove the pole, let alone flag over this silent stranger who allegedly helped him. And he also claims he fell down removing the pole, so, if he did fall over while holding the pole, naturally this would damage the cab as well. So there are many factors that don't make sense about Lloyde's account and after visiting the cab and seeing the damage to the cab first hand, it doesn't clear up his story at all. It doesn't make his story seem any more possible. In fact, now we're even more certain the light pole could not have speared the windshield of Lloyde's cab.**


He was there, but all the evidence I've seen suggests he was lying concerning the pole. The irony is that despite the evidence that he was there, he denies it! The most likely reason as to why is because CIT made it clear that he was the only witness that clearly corroborates the flight path that goes south of the Citgo gas station. All the other witnesses that were in a good position to know clearly put the plane on a flight path that took it north of the Citgo gas station.

The reason that someone like old Terral/EOTS and the other more experienced conspiracy kooks would never do that is because they see the follow up question forming in the distance like a hurricane.

So, phoenyx, do tell us why the conspirators would ever include Mr. England in this diabolical plan? Why would they want to put him on the payroll, make him available to questioning from Skanke or whatever his name is from the CIT, not have “coached him” on what to say when/if asked?

Certainly, they didn’t need to have a cab involved in a plane crash; there have been hundreds of crashes that didn’t involve a cab or light poles so it wasn’t essential to the trigger event.
Certainly they didn’t need for him to put voice to what the cab obviously shows; the flight path in the 9/11 Commission report is dead on balls accurate.
Certainly they didn’t need to have a loose end like him giving testimony out of school.
Certainly they could have had any number of people corroborate the flight path that goes through the poles and hits the generator as well (in fact, why didn’t CIT ask anyone else???)

The common sense continues. I'm enjoying watching this methodical, persistent demolition of the theory, exposing each layer in turn and peeling it away.

 

[phoenyx]

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

That's right. Do you?

I trust those who make the most sense.

I'm sure we all think that we trust those who make the most sense, laugh .

The government, while their account does not appear to be 100% accurate; is far more believable than the variety of twoofer accounts.

Do you -really- have to insult the people you're talking to? I consider myself a card carrying truther; "twoofer" is clearly an insult -.-. Anyway, we clearly disagree as to what is more believable...

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.

For the record, I'm not sure if an aircraft hit the Pentagon or not. I definitely don't think Flight 77 or even a 757 hit it though, and certainly not along the south side flight path. I definitely believe explosives were used inside the Pentagon. As to what happened to Flight #77, I've seen some theories that I think are quite plausible, but they are theories. Anyway, no need to remind me of what you think is most plausible, I think that's been well established (the official story), think we should concentrate on why we disagree.

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.

If you really feel there's no point, what's the point of you participating in this thread? You don't think you'll persuade me by saying that you're right and I'm wrong now do you? Our only hope of coming to any kind of agreement is by discussing the evidence.

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?

I'm referring to the wheel hub. Show me a government web site that states that it is a photograph gathered by a government agency.

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

From CIT's FAQ question on the matter:
**Please remember that the suspiciously small amount of plane debris was one of the reasons that many people were initially skeptical as to whether or not a plane really hit the Pentagon in the first place.

None of the photographed parts have been positively identified as belonging to "Flight 77" or tail #N644AA via the matching of serial numbers, and there has been no attempt to reconstruct the plane as is usually the protocol during aircraft crash investigations.

Furthermore, the mere presence of these pieces of debris does not prove a plane hit. Once again the suspect in question had complete control of the area, which had been under "renovation" for years. Parts photographed inside could have easily been placed there before or after the event. Parts photographed on the outside lawn could also have been easily planted, either shortly before the event or during the chaos that ensued just after the explosion. Minutes after the "attack" (flyover) there was a panicked evacuation for fear of another plane coming in.**

Source: Frequently Asked Questions » Weren't there photographs of plane parts taken inside and outside of the Pentagon on 9/11 and shortly thereafter? If so, don't these photographs prove that Flight 77 hit the building?

and I see damage to a building somewhat resembling the shape of a plane

From another author whom I trust:
**I believe that any reasonable person who is willing to look at the evidence (photo and otherwise) will have to conclude that there was not enough damage to the Pentagon for it to have been hit by a Boeing 757. Not enough damage to the building but apparently enough to vaporize the plane.**

Source:
HOW WE KNOW AN AIRLINER DID NOT HIT THE PENTAGON | Truth and Shadows

and I see an image that appears to be said plane

Another article from the same author as above:
DOCTORED PENTAGON VIDEO PROVES 9/11 COVER-UP AND INSIDE JOB | Truth and Shadows

which also matches the description from many witnesses ....

I can certainly agree that many witnesses saw an aircraft approach the Pentagon. That being said, the flight path all of the witnesses of the plane who were in the best position to know which flight path it took all state that it came from North of the Citgo gas station. As to Lloyd England, he has never claimed to see the aircraft, despite a light pole allegedly knocked down, allegedly by AA77, allegedly spearing his car.

 

[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.

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.

Do you know the width of that piece of debris vs. the width of a n in a 757 plane? Because if you don't, it's clear that you are simply guessing that they are the same size.

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....

No, I don't. Do you?

 

[phoenyx]

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.

Indeed. An excerpt from CIT's page Evidence >> Official Interviews page:
**Here we provide the official interviews referenced in National Security Alert. As stated in the video, many of the north side approach witnesses presented are on record placing the plane on the same north side approach flight path during official interviews conducted only weeks after the event. This eliminates the notion that they are remembering inaccurately due to faded memory.

These interviews came from two sources: The Center for Military History (CMH) and the Library of Congress (LoC). All CMH interviews have been obtained viaFreedom of Information Act Request, and all interviews from the LoC are available for download on their website.

The interviews released by the CMH had the names redacted, meaning that they were not (readily) independently verifiable, and thus subject to having been manipulated or fabricated. That would change, of course, if we could figure out who the witnesses were and contact them directly to confirm their accounts first-hand. Only then could their accounts rightly be considered independent verifiable evidence. We were successful at finding all of the most pertinent witnesses who claimed to have seen the plane and had the most critical vantage points to be able to tell if the plane was north or south of the gas station. These were primarily employees at Arlington National Cemetery (ANC). One of the witnesses, Darrell Stafford, had stated to the CMH that he was the "interment foreman" which is what helped us track him down.**

The article continues with transcriptions from these interviews done in 2001. Feel free to take a look...

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.

CIT believe the plane didn't hit the Pentagon at all; they believe it flew over the Pentagon.

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.

As mentioned elsewhere, kudos to believing Terry Morin's testimony. That being said, it diverges from the blue line up until the light poles, which means it doesn't concord with the NTSB Black Box data up until that point. Do you realize that, if Terry Morin's testimony alone is true, the Black Box data must be fabricated up until it gets to the light poles?

 

[phoenyx]

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?

You're dodging my question. We can disagree on what constitutes evidence. But if we're going to progress in our conversation, we must try to understand -why- we disagree with each other. Do you agree?

 

[phoenyx]

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

Good idea.

Tell us how the wreckage from flight 77 (i.e. evidence) got into the Pentagon and on the Pentagon lawn.

I haven't seen any solid evidence that any wreckage from flight 77 ever got into the Pentagon or the Pentagon lawn.

 

[phoenyx]

Why don't you wait for someone who has the "stuff" and just let me carry on with people who are actually willing to discuss the evidence?

Except you’re not.

Clearly we disagree on that point...

 

[phoenyx]

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

A better rule would be for you to stop proving the “other side” is correct. You do it every time

It's easy to believe that someone is mistaken. What's much harder to do is figure out is why you disagree with them.

 

[phoenyx]

Of course…

Lurking in the background to all of this discussion about AA77 and a cruise missile is the question of “why”. No twoofer would ever write a narrative to explain it (at least none have yet).

Ever ready with the name calling eh -.-? Actually, the subject has been explored fairly extensively. It's not one that I want to get into right now though; as I've mentioned in the past, it's far easier to determine what happened, then to determine why it happened. First things first.

 

[phoenyx]

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.

Nor should you feel any such obligation. I'm just saying that if you can't prove something, you might want to quit acting like you actually have proof for your assertions.

LOL

I'm not obligated to prove anything because his account is part of the official record.

As I just mentioned, "Nor should you feel any such obligation. I'm just saying that if you can't prove something, you might want to quit acting like you actually have proof for your assertions."

The burden of proof falls upon you to prove he's lying

I'm not prosecuting him in a court of law here. I'm simply providing what I believe is solid evidence that his testimony is false.

You point to a scratch on the ground. It's going from right to left, toawrds the shoulder of the road

Yes, it's going from right to left. It starts further away from Lloyd's car, and it ends closer to Lloyd's car. Why would they pull that heavy light pole -towards- Lloyd's car? The only reason I can think of is to stage the event to make it look like the pole had actually speared Lloyd's cab. And while it was closer to Lloyd's car, it was still a fair distance away from it. I'll put up the photo once again, for reference...

There's no evidence to suggest the dash board "would have been decimated," as you suggest.

Alright, I guess we just won't come to an agreement on how much damage the light pole would have done if it had actually speared Lloyd's cab. I'd like to point out what a small hole Lloyd's cab actually had shortly after the alleged spearing. I don't have the measurements of the light pole handy, but it simply looks too small to have fit the light pole in it:

There's no evidence Lloyd falling while holding up the pole would have damaged the hood of his car, as you suggest, as he never said at what point of the pole extraction that occurred.

Alright, guess we won't agree on this point either.

As far as the claim the pole couldn't have been wedged in the back seat because it wasn't punctured... that is not an accurate description based on the evidence. CIT took pictures of the back seat and there's a gap between the back rest and the back seat, where the pole appears to have wedged itself...

You'd think the pole was a featherweight. I know, I know, you'll probably disagree and say that that was plenty of damage...

 

[phoenyx]

And now you see why most Twoofers don’t want to go anywhere near physical evidence...

candy, for a while, I've wondered, do you actually want your target audience to respond? If not, why do you keep asking them questions? And If so, why do you keep insulting them?

 

[candycorn]

And now you see why most Twoofers don’t want to go anywhere near physical evidence...

candy, for a while, I've wondered, do you actually want your target audience to respond? If not, why do you keep asking them questions? And If so, why do you keep insulting them?

You were insulted by the truth? Prove me wrong. Discuss the physical evidence and come up with plausible explanations for it.

 

[candycorn]

Of course…

Lurking in the background to all of this discussion about AA77 and a cruise missile is the question of “why”. No twoofer would ever write a narrative to explain it (at least none have yet).

Ever ready with the name calling eh -.-? Actually, the subject has been explored fairly extensively. It's not one that I want to get into right now though; as I've mentioned in the past, it's far easier to determine what happened, then to determine why it happened. First things first.

Whenever you feel like blessing us with your cartoon on “what happened” that day and feel like writing it all down in a narrative …I’ll be happy to read it. I love fiction; comedic fiction especially.

 

[candycorn]

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

A better rule would be for you to stop proving the “other side” is correct. You do it every time

It's easy to believe that someone is mistaken. What's much harder to do is figure out is why you disagree with them.

Harder to do ?

Well, lets see. I deal in physical evidence. You deal in cherry picking eye witness testimony (sometimes done years after the eye witnessed the event). The physical evidence cannot lie. The eye witness testimony becomes less and less trustworthy with each passing minute.

You shouldn’t worry that I disagree with you.

You should worry that the evidence disagrees with you.

 

[phoenyx]

And now you see why most Twoofers don’t want to go anywhere near physical evidence...

candy, for a while, I've wondered, do you actually want your target audience to respond? If not, why do you keep asking them questions? And If so, why do you keep insulting them?

You were insulted by the truth?

No, I was insulted because you're insulting a group I associate with, mainly truthers. Perhaps you're not aware, but "Twoofer" is an insult. Some people who don't believe the official story don't even like to be called truthers, but almost all of those who disagree with the official story agree that it is not an insulting term per se.

 

[phoenyx]

Of course…

Lurking in the background to all of this discussion about AA77 and a cruise missile is the question of “why”. No twoofer would ever write a narrative to explain it (at least none have yet).

Ever ready with the name calling eh -.-? Actually, the subject has been explored fairly extensively. It's not one that I want to get into right now though; as I've mentioned in the past, it's far easier to determine what happened, then to determine why it happened. First things first.

Whenever you feel like blessing us with your cartoon on “what happened” that day and feel like writing it all down in a narrative …I’ll be happy to read it. I love fiction; comedic fiction especially.

Your insults are so transparent that it's hard to be enthused to discuss these subjects with you. I must admit I'm curious as to why you even bother to post in this conspiracy forum at all, as you seem to have so little interest in actually discussing the evidence. That being said, I'll give you a small nugget that suggests a possible reason in this 5 minute video from James Corbett, starting at about 50 seconds in:

 

[phoenyx]

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

A better rule would be for you to stop proving the “other side” is correct. You do it every time

It's easy to believe that someone is mistaken. What's much harder to do is figure out is why you disagree with them.

Harder to do ?

Indeed.

Well, lets see. I deal in physical evidence.

You deal in government sanctioned propaganda, refuse to question it, and insult anyone who does.

You deal in cherry picking eye witness testimony (sometimes done years after the eye witnessed the event).

Hardly. CIT has compiled a master list of just about every witness to the plane approaching the pentagon under the sun:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82&st=0

Furthermore, it has filmed most of the witnesses who had the best vantage points to determine the aircraft's flight path in its final moments and made more then one documentary based on their filmings. The one it recommends people see first is National Security Alert, which can be seen below:



It's OCT supporters who constantly cherry pick, picking only the accounts that concord with the OCT and ignoring most if not all of the rest.

 

[candycorn]

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

A better rule would be for you to stop proving the “other side” is correct. You do it every time

It's easy to believe that someone is mistaken. What's much harder to do is figure out is why you disagree with them.

Harder to do ?

Indeed.

Well, lets see. I deal in physical evidence.

You deal in government sanctioned propaganda, refuse to question it, and insult anyone who does.

You deal in cherry picking eye witness testimony (sometimes done years after the eye witnessed the event).

Hardly. CIT has compiled a master list of just about every witness to the plane approaching the pentagon under the sun:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82&st=0

Furthermore, it has filmed most of the witnesses who had the best vantage points to determine the aircraft's flight path in its final moments and made more then one documentary based on their filmings. The one it recommends people see first is National Security Alert, which can be seen below:



It's OCT supporters who constantly cherry pick, picking only the accounts that concord with the OCT and ignoring most if not all of the rest.

Finally got you to say something definitive. How’d it feel?

So to sum up the Position of CIT, the bottom should suffice.

Everything that doesn’t support eyewitness testimony is faked apparently.

 

[candycorn]

Of course…

Lurking in the background to all of this discussion about AA77 and a cruise missile is the question of “why”. No twoofer would ever write a narrative to explain it (at least none have yet).

Ever ready with the name calling eh -.-? Actually, the subject has been explored fairly extensively. It's not one that I want to get into right now though; as I've mentioned in the past, it's far easier to determine what happened, then to determine why it happened. First things first.

Whenever you feel like blessing us with your cartoon on “what happened” that day and feel like writing it all down in a narrative …I’ll be happy to read it. I love fiction; comedic fiction especially.

Your insults are so transparent that it’s hard to be enthused to discuss these subjects with you.

My insults should be crystal clear.

I wouldn’t discuss them with me either since I’m making you look dumber than normal.

I must admit I’m curious as to why you even bother to post in this conspiracy forum at all, as you seem to have so little interest in actually discussing the evidence.

Because, so far, I’ve given you attention that you cannot garner in real life. Don’t expect it to last.

That being said, I'll give you a small nugget that suggests a possible reason in this 5 minute video from James Corbett, starting at about 50 seconds in:

Not interested.

See loser, if you really had a theory that was iron clad or had a serious question about 9/11, you’d relish the chance to lay it all out there, piece by piece like Perry Mason or, for you koo koo conspiracy guys, like Kevin Costner did in his summation in the movie JFK. Start at the beginning and simply tell us what happened. Instead, you want to satisfy some sick perverse “you-don’t-show-em-Jaws-in-the-first-clip” type of hooey that is supposed to put us on the edge of our seats. What you fail to realize is that we’ve seen all this shit you’re trying to shovel already. It’s been blown out of the water so often…it died of dehydration.

 

[candycorn]

And now you see why most Twoofers don’t want to go anywhere near physical evidence...

candy, for a while, I've wondered, do you actually want your target audience to respond? If not, why do you keep asking them questions? And If so, why do you keep insulting them?

You were insulted by the truth?

No, I was insulted because you're insulting a group I associate with, mainly truthers. Perhaps you're not aware, but "Twoofer" is an insult. Some people who don't believe the official story don't even like to be called truthers, but almost all of those who disagree with the official story agree that it is not an insulting term per se.

Way back in the day when you were likely still trying to figure out how to tie your shoes and being a nuisance to your teachers; likely wondering if the Jews were behind the letters AEIO & U becoming vowels, there were some truthers.

These were people who had legitimate questions (as I do) about 9/11. How’d the hijackers know there was a drill going on that day? Is this announced ahead of time? Why would it be announced if it were? If a “shoot down” order was valid, are you telling me that we don’t have any SAM capabilities around our bases or on our ships? I know the navy has SAMs that have about 350 mile ranges…

I’ll admit that not all of my questions have been answered. There are likely no answers except for the failure of imagination (not the one cited in the 9/11 Report) but we hadn’t had a hijacking in about 25 years or so…nobody really knew what would be involved in the scenario.

The word “Twoofer” is a moniker given to losers who are just craving attention. Which is obviously what you’re doing.