| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Killtown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 438
Location: That Yankee country the U.S.
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 8:10 am Post subject: Question for 'no 757 hit Pentagon, but 767 hit WTC' crowd |
 |
|
A lot of people who believe no 757 hit the Pentagon *don't* believe that 767's, or "no planes", hit the WTC. The reason I mostly hear why these people don't believe in the no planes at the WTC theory is because of the "thousands of witnesses" that they somehow know were watching the WTC before the alleged crash.
My question is, if 767's had to have hit the WTC because "thousands of witnesses" were watching there, how do you explain that a 757 *did not* hit the Pentagon when people say that there were "hundreds of witnesses" there?
_________________
killtown.blogspot.com - 911movement.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 8:15 am Post subject: Re: Question for 'no 757 hit Pentagon, but 767 hit WTC' crow |
|
|
| Killtown wrote: | A lot of people who believe no 757 hit the Pentagon *don't* believe that 767's, or "no planes", hit the WTC. The reason I mostly hear why these people don't believe in the no planes at the WTC theory is because of the "thousands of witnesses" that they somehow know were watching the WTC before the alleged crash.
My question is, if 767's had to have hit the WTC because "thousands of witnesses" were watching there, how do you explain that a 757 *did not* hit the Pentagon when people say that there were "hundreds of witnesses" there? |
Geography.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 12:27 pm Post subject: Re: Question for 'no 757 hit Pentagon, but 767 hit WTC' crow |
|
|
| Killtown wrote: | A lot of people who believe no 757 hit the Pentagon *don't* believe that 767's, or "no planes", hit the WTC. The reason I mostly hear why these people don't believe in the no planes at the WTC theory is because of the "thousands of witnesses" that they somehow know were watching the WTC before the alleged crash.
My question is, if 767's had to have hit the WTC because "thousands of witnesses" were watching there, how do you explain that a 757 *did not* hit the Pentagon when people say that there were "hundreds of witnesses" there? |
it has nothing to do with witnesses to many, the physical evidence for a plane just is'nt ignored by everyone.
plane holes all be it blocky, plane debris, witnesses, video footage, the speed of the impact, what the towers were designed to do, one witnesses inside the towers who saw it coming and dived underneath a desk and eventually escaped from the impact zone, radar picking up hijacked craft heading towards NY, also the sound of a plane.
i could go on, but don't be fooled its only witnesses that make people think planes hit.
no look at the pentagon:
impact hole is to small and no wing markings on the outside wall, not very convincing video footage and failure to release to the public what should of been caught on other camera's, witnesses contridicting the flightpath, the blackbox data contridicting the offical story,, some plane debris being claimed to come from something other than what we was told hit, again i could go on.
there is more reason to think no plane hit the pentagon than the towers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Killtown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 438
Location: That Yankee country the U.S.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Killtown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 438
Location: That Yankee country the U.S.
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 6:01 pm Post subject: Re: Question for 'no 757 hit Pentagon, but 767 hit WTC' crow |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | it has nothing to do with witnesses to many, the physical evidence for a plane just is'nt ignored by everyone.
plane holes all be it blocky, plane debris, witnesses, video footage, the speed of the impact, what the towers were designed to do, one witnesses inside the towers who saw it coming and dived underneath a desk and eventually escaped from the impact zone, radar picking up hijacked craft heading towards NY, also the sound of a plane.
i could go on, but don't be fooled its only witnesses that make people think planes hit.
no look at the pentagon:
impact hole is to small and no wing markings on the outside wall, not very convincing video footage and failure to release to the public what should of been caught on other camera's, witnesses contridicting the flightpath, the blackbox data contridicting the offical story,, some plane debris being claimed to come from something other than what we was told hit, again i could go on.
there is more reason to think no plane hit the pentagon than the towers. |
So the physical evidence at the Pentagon outweighs the witness testimony there?
_________________
killtown.blogspot.com - 911movement.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 6:31 pm Post subject: Re: Question for 'no 757 hit Pentagon, but 767 hit WTC' crow |
|
|
| Killtown wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | it has nothing to do with witnesses to many, the physical evidence for a plane just is'nt ignored by everyone.
plane holes all be it blocky, plane debris, witnesses, video footage, the speed of the impact, what the towers were designed to do, one witnesses inside the towers who saw it coming and dived underneath a desk and eventually escaped from the impact zone, radar picking up hijacked craft heading towards NY, also the sound of a plane.
i could go on, but don't be fooled its only witnesses that make people think planes hit.
no look at the pentagon:
impact hole is to small and no wing markings on the outside wall, not very convincing video footage and failure to release to the public what should of been caught on other camera's, witnesses contridicting the flightpath, the blackbox data contridicting the offical story,, some plane debris being claimed to come from something other than what we was told hit, again i could go on.
there is more reason to think no plane hit the pentagon than the towers. |
So the physical evidence at the Pentagon outweighs the witness testimony there? |
well like any investigastion work it should all be taken into account, however i would'nt say witnesses are top of the list, however their statements could give clues so need to be listened to, but if they contridict each other then you car'nt take any witness statement to be the truth and the pysical evidence should be the only concern.
nothing can be ignored that is known fact from the scene and which is not made up on the internet by some researcher claiming rubbish with no evidence.
however none of this matters, my only point was that it is not just witnesses that make people think planes hit the towers and no planes hit the pentagon, there is a wealth of other reasons to think that than just witnesses like you are implying in your first post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Killtown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 438
Location: That Yankee country the U.S.
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 7:47 pm Post subject: Re: Question for 'no 757 hit Pentagon, but 767 hit WTC' crow |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | well like any investigastion work it should all be taken into account, however i would'nt say witnesses are top of the list, however their statements could give clues so need to be listened to, but if they contridict each other then you car'nt take any witness statement to be the truth and the pysical evidence should be the only concern.
nothing can be ignored that is known fact from the scene and which is not made up on the internet by some researcher claiming rubbish with no evidence.
however none of this matters, my only point was that it is not just witnesses that make people think planes hit the towers and no planes hit the pentagon, there is a wealth of other reasons to think that than just witnesses like you are implying in your first post. |
Half-planers say that planes hit the WTC because thousands of witnesses saw it. by that logic, they must a agree that a plane hit the Pentagon because 100's of witnesses saw it.
_________________
killtown.blogspot.com - 911movement.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 8:12 pm Post subject: Re: Question for 'no 757 hit Pentagon, but 767 hit WTC' crow |
|
|
| Killtown wrote: | | by that logic, they must a agree that a plane hit the Pentagon because 100's of witnesses saw it. |
That is not logic Killtown, and your directive is illogical.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Killtown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 438
Location: That Yankee country the U.S.
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 8:45 pm Post subject: Re: Question for 'no 757 hit Pentagon, but 767 hit WTC' crow |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Killtown wrote: | | by that logic, they must a agree that a plane hit the Pentagon because 100's of witnesses saw it. |
That is not logic Killtown, and your directive is illogical. |
Yeah, how so?
And can you explain your answer?
_________________
killtown.blogspot.com - 911movement.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 8:54 pm Post subject: Re: Question for 'no 757 hit Pentagon, but 767 hit WTC' crow |
|
|
| Killtown wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Killtown wrote: | | by that logic, they must a agree that a plane hit the Pentagon because 100's of witnesses saw it. |
That is not logic Killtown, and your directive is illogical. |
Yeah, how so?
And can you explain your answer? |
Suffice to say (and I know you are at least as familiar as I am) that Lite and Merc have built a strong case for what happened at the Pentagon.
Their well supported hypothesis is happily also consistent with the FDR data that Snowygrouch liberated.
The topography of Manhattan is completely different and doesn't lend itself to the same illusion.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Killtown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 438
Location: That Yankee country the U.S.
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 8:59 pm Post subject: Re: Question for 'no 757 hit Pentagon, but 767 hit WTC' crow |
|
|
| chek wrote: | 1) Suffice to say (and I know you are at least as familiar as I am) that Lite and Merc have built a strong case for what happened at the Pentagon.
Their well supported hypothesis is happily also consistent with the FDR data that Snowygrouch liberated.
2) The topography of Manhattan is completely different and doesn't lend itself to the same illusion. |
1) Yes and their fly-over theory gives new credibility to no-planes at the WTC.
2) How so?
_________________
killtown.blogspot.com - 911movement.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:13 pm Post subject: Re: Question for 'no 757 hit Pentagon, but 767 hit WTC' crow |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
The topography of Manhattan is completely different and doesn't lend itself to the same illusion. |
National Review has this quote: “I saw it," he says, "It could have been a plane, but I think it was a bomb — uh, a missile. This could be World War III."
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock052402.asp
The BBC reports: I distinctly remember somebody saying: “A missile just hit the trade center, I saw a missile hit.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/world/02/september_11/where_were _you_when/html/1.stm
According to a CNN transcript, a reporter said: a small plane -- I did -- it looked like a propeller plane, came in from the west.
An eyewitness also states: I had no idea it was a plane. I just saw the entire top part of the World Trade Center explode. So I turned on the TV when I heard they said it was a plane. It was really strange.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.01.html
We know the corporate media to be lying about virtually everything regarding 9/11. So are we really supposed to trust a CNN producer when he says: It was a jet. It looked like a two-engine jet, maybe a 737… A large passenger commercial jet. ? (transcript link above) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
*sigh* eyewitness reports on their own don't amount to anything: which is why, in the legal systems around the world, there is such a thing as corroborating evidence, and convictions are rarely obtained on eyewitness testimony alone (not safe convictions anyway...)
The corroborating evidence at the Pentagon does not add up to conclusive evidence of a plane
The corroborating evidence at the World Trade Centre most definately does: not least becuase there is vastly more of it.
If there had been two events at the pentagon, the chances of useful footage , for example, would be much much higher. Thats the primary source footage kind of course, as in what was originally broadcast/photographed, not the kind which has gone through "SupaUtubewebfairyfredisation"
I'm sorry that all the months of "researching" at "911 researchers" have not uncovered these basic principles, but now you can all rest easy that you have: must be a big relief!
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:33 pm Post subject: Re: Question for 'no 757 hit Pentagon, but 767 hit WTC' crow |
|
|
| Killtown wrote: | | chek wrote: | | 2) The topography of Manhattan is completely different and doesn't lend itself to the same illusion. |
1) Yes and their fly-over theory gives new credibility to no-planes at the WTC. |
How so?
| Killtown wrote: | | 2) How so? |
C'mon KT, don't play dumb with me.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us.
Last edited by chek on Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:34 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | *sigh* eyewitness reports on their own don't amount to anything: which is why, in the legal systems around the world, there is such a thing as corroborating evidence, and convictions are rarely obtained on eyewitness testimony alone (not safe convictions anyway...)
The corroborating evidence at the Pentagon does not add up to conclusive evidence of a plane
The corroborating evidence at the World Trade Centre most definately does: not least becuase there is vastly more of it.
If there had been two events at the pentagon, the chances of useful footage , for example, would be much much higher. Thats the primary source footage kind of course, as in what was originally broadcast/photographed, not the kind which has gone through "SupaUtubewebfairyfredisation"
I'm sorry that all the months of "researching" at "911 researchers" have not uncovered these basic principles, but now you can all rest easy that you have: must be a big relief! |
What's even more sorry is your biasing towards real planes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CB_Brooklyn wrote: |
What's even more sorry is your biasing towards real planes |
Aw c'mon CB- your cherry-picked, less-than-a-handful of witnesses is pretty high in the sorry stakes too.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | John White wrote: | *sigh* eyewitness reports on their own don't amount to anything: which is why, in the legal systems around the world, there is such a thing as corroborating evidence, and convictions are rarely obtained on eyewitness testimony alone (not safe convictions anyway...)
The corroborating evidence at the Pentagon does not add up to conclusive evidence of a plane
The corroborating evidence at the World Trade Centre most definately does: not least becuase there is vastly more of it.
If there had been two events at the pentagon, the chances of useful footage , for example, would be much much higher. Thats the primary source footage kind of course, as in what was originally broadcast/photographed, not the kind which has gone through "SupaUtubewebfairyfredisation"
I'm sorry that all the months of "researching" at "911 researchers" have not uncovered these basic principles, but now you can all rest easy that you have: must be a big relief! |
What's even more sorry is your biasing towards real planes |
I'm biased towards convincing and robust evidence, I'll give you that. as defined by the process of "not falling apart within a couple of minutes of cursory inspection"
I did say to Fred once that I'm just the kind of guy you could do with convincing! Sadly, it didnt seem to make any difference either to his methodology or the quality of what he put forward (though it did gain the octopus factor!)
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | CB_Brooklyn wrote: |
What's even more sorry is your biasing towards real planes |
Aw c'mon CB- your cherry-picked, less-than-a-handful of witnesses is pretty high in the sorry stakes too. |
I agree. "Less-than-a-handful of witnesses". You give them more credence than I |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | John White wrote: | *sigh* eyewitness reports on their own don't amount to anything: which is why, in the legal systems around the world, there is such a thing as corroborating evidence, and convictions are rarely obtained on eyewitness testimony alone (not safe convictions anyway...)
The corroborating evidence at the Pentagon does not add up to conclusive evidence of a plane
The corroborating evidence at the World Trade Centre most definately does: not least becuase there is vastly more of it.
If there had been two events at the pentagon, the chances of useful footage , for example, would be much much higher. Thats the primary source footage kind of course, as in what was originally broadcast/photographed, not the kind which has gone through "SupaUtubewebfairyfredisation"
I'm sorry that all the months of "researching" at "911 researchers" have not uncovered these basic principles, but now you can all rest easy that you have: must be a big relief! |
What's even more sorry is your biasing towards real planes |
I'm biased towards convincing and robust evidence, I'll give you that. as defined by the process of "not falling apart within a couple of minutes of cursory inspection"
I did say to Fred once that I'm just the kind of guy you could do with convincing! Sadly, it didnt seem to make any difference either to his methodology or the quality of what he put forward (though it did gain the octopus factor!) |
That's a bunch of rambling, it doesn't say anything.
What is all pro-plane evidence that you're biased by, btw? And, please.. don't tell me because you saw it on tee-vee |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | And, please.. don't tell me because you saw it on tee-vee |
LOL!
ALL of your theorising is based on what YOU saw on TV! Nothing else but that counts in NPT land! (although its a messed about with degraded Pirate bootleg dodgy copy version of what was on TV...)
One could'nt make it up, really
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I believe that's what's called touché ² - with sugar on 
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | Quote: | | And, please.. don't tell me because you saw it on tee-vee |
LOL!
ALL of your theorising is based on what YOU saw on TV! Nothing else but that counts in NPT land! (although its a messed about with degraded Pirate bootleg dodgy copy version of what was on TV...)
One could'nt make it up, really
|
We're talking about your evidence. Don't dodge the issue and quit twisting things around and putting them back on me...... that's a classic disinfo tactic. So.... I ask again... where is your evidence? It's a very simple question! And you should have little trouble answering it assuming you know what you're talking about!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh true enough, but little inclination to expend the effort right now... there's a search function on the site you can use if you are really interested in opening your own mind to how you've allowed your imagination to dominate your perceptions...
However, if you expect me to play round-the-mulberry-bush with you CBBrooklyn, you're sadly mistaken: the nature of your comments, both here and on 9/11 researchers, most definately precede you. Thems the breaks
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andyb
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1025
Location: SW London
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Come on 'researchers'!! If you were interested in tv fakery/actors etc then why have none of you researched that man at the pentagon who gave loads of interviews on the day claiming to see an American Airlines plane. He was on the 'Explosive Testimony' film thats been removed form youtube, hopefully back up soon. Oh no, lets turn the attention away from that with pure nonsance(  ) about Willie Rodriguez and too much to mention, other nonsense and turn the whole idea into a joke. Well done!
Thankfully there are people still on here with the patience of Chek to show your true colours.
_________________
"We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Killtown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 438
Location: That Yankee country the U.S.
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 11:13 pm Post subject: Re: Question for 'no 757 hit Pentagon, but 767 hit WTC' crow |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Killtown wrote: | | chek wrote: | | 2) The topography of Manhattan is completely different and doesn't lend itself to the same illusion. |
1) Yes and their fly-over theory gives new credibility to no-planes at the WTC. |
1) How so?
| Killtown wrote: | | 2) How so? |
2) C'mon KT, don't play dumb with me. |
1) C'mon check, "don't play dumb with me."
2) Answer my question and then I'll answer yours.
_________________
killtown.blogspot.com - 911movement.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 11:16 pm Post subject: Re: Question for 'no 757 hit Pentagon, but 767 hit WTC' crow |
|
|
| Killtown wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | well like any investigastion work it should all be taken into account, however i would'nt say witnesses are top of the list, however their statements could give clues so need to be listened to, but if they contridict each other then you car'nt take any witness statement to be the truth and the pysical evidence should be the only concern.
nothing can be ignored that is known fact from the scene and which is not made up on the internet by some researcher claiming rubbish with no evidence.
however none of this matters, my only point was that it is not just witnesses that make people think planes hit the towers and no planes hit the pentagon, there is a wealth of other reasons to think that than just witnesses like you are implying in your first post. |
Half-planers say that planes hit the WTC because thousands of witnesses saw it. by that logic, they must a agree that a plane hit the Pentagon because 100's of witnesses saw it. |
which part of it has nothing to do with witnesses alone don't you understand? there is a wealth of other reasons for thinking no planes at the pentagon and planes at the towers.
or are you saying you can only believe planes at every place or no planes at every place but car'nt believe a mixture even if the evidence is stronger for that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | Oh true enough, but little inclination to expend the effort right now... there's a search function on the site you can use if you are really interested in opening your own mind to how you've allowed your imagination to dominate your perceptions...
However, if you expect me to play round-the-mulberry-bush with you CBBrooklyn, you're sadly mistaken: the nature of your comments, both here and on 9/11 researchers, most definately precede you. Thems the breaks |
Thanks for confirming that you have no evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Killtown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 438
Location: That Yankee country the U.S.
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 1:17 am Post subject: Re: Question for 'no 757 hit Pentagon, but 767 hit WTC' crow |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | which part of it has nothing to do with witnesses alone don't you understand? there is a wealth of other reasons for thinking no planes at the pentagon and planes at the towers.
or are you saying you can only believe planes at every place or no planes at every place but car'nt believe a mixture even if the evidence is stronger for that? |
So then you are saying that the "thousands of eyewitnesses" is essentially meaningless?
_________________
killtown.blogspot.com - 911movement.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | John White wrote: | Oh true enough, but little inclination to expend the effort right now... there's a search function on the site you can use if you are really interested in opening your own mind to how you've allowed your imagination to dominate your perceptions...
However, if you expect me to play round-the-mulberry-bush with you CBBrooklyn, you're sadly mistaken: the nature of your comments, both here and on 9/11 researchers, most definately precede you. Thems the breaks |
Thanks for confirming that you have no evidence. |
LOL!
No thankyou!
For confirming your not worth particular amounts of effort
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 3:04 am Post subject: Re: Question for 'no 757 hit Pentagon, but 767 hit WTC' crow |
|
|
| Killtown wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | which part of it has nothing to do with witnesses alone don't you understand? there is a wealth of other reasons for thinking no planes at the pentagon and planes at the towers.
or are you saying you can only believe planes at every place or no planes at every place but car'nt believe a mixture even if the evidence is stronger for that? |
So then you are saying that the "thousands of eyewitnesses" is essentially meaningless? |
NO! just not the ONLY thing that is taken into consideration.
heres why,
witnesses claim not seeing a plane
witnesses claim seeing a plane
witnesses claim seeing a missle
witnesses claim seeing a plane but not american airlines
witnesses claim seeing a small jet
so are they all true? obviously not. hmmm ok lets see what the physical eveidence fits to clear this up then.
do you understand yet? witnesses are not the reason why people think no planes at the pentagon but at the same time think there was planes at the towers.
its what the physical evidence supports that is the decider, witnesses just fit which ever theory you believe they are not the evidence or reason for believing unless all of them told the same story. but they can give clues to what happened if each person was marked on a map of NY at the place they spotted what they saw when interviewed by police.
however i dont think this happened on 9/11 given the events, so all we have is interviews or video evidence but we don't know where each witness was when they saw what they saw to paint a picture of how and why they may of saw what they saw.
therefore witnesses are void to a point and only the pysical factual evidence can be considered, that dos'nt mean ignoring what they say all together. but if theres evidence for a plane and some said they did'nt see one it dos'nt mean the plane did'nt exsist all of a sudden, they were proberbly stood in the wrong place to see a plane but caught some of the explosion for example.
hence "all i saw was a huge explosion"
anyway most people think something hit the pentagon, just not a passenger plane, so in theory its not no planes at the pentagon for most.
i think something hit the pentagon also its just a question of what as this is what the physical evidence suggests. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
