Jump to content
The Education Forum

Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...


Jack White
 Share

Recommended Posts

Okay, I see where you are coming from.

All the witnesses lied.

All the wreckage was planted.

All the images are faked.

It's not evidence if you don't accept it.

If people don't agree with you, it's a conspiracy.

Always claim that the other guy is "closed-minded" and that you're as free-thinking as a newborn baby.

Talk authoritively about subjects you don't have any expertise in.

There is no sense in talking about the subject to you, because you have already made up your mind and nothing will change it.

Ah come on now Evan, give Blair a break...after all he has met Len Osanic, host of Black Op radio...and now we know he's just another blind nutjob.

Would it suprise you to learn that Fetzer is a regular guest on Black Op radio? I did'nt think so.

I

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

" i HAVE A FRIEND who said THEY SAW....yadda yadda.."

Go tell your friend they need a checkup ok? They obviously saw something that the marines didn't..

First off, if you do your homework instead of posting the same six photos of of the four pieces of "rubble" that are claimed to be from a 757 (which upon closer inspection shows they are not from a 757 at all, or a 747 for that matter) you will notice there strange lack of the following:

wings

engines

bodies

IDENTIFYING MARKINGS

black boxes

tail section

LUGGAGE

SEATS

shall i go on?

ok..

now again, lemme explain some LOGIC here:

it's not up to me to prove to you that a plane DIDN't hit the pentagon, it's up to you to prove it DID.

nowhere in those pictures is there any compelling evidence that wings, tails, nose or any other part of a commercial airliner hit that building. Period.

That "rubble" you call evidence is like looking at a spec of tomato sauce and calling it a spagetti dinner.

Go hit the NTSB site and look at the EXTENSIVE COLLECTION of plane crashes and the HUGE CHUNKS OF IDENTIFIABLE PIECES they leave behind.

answer these questions for me as well you brainiacs:

wheres the plane?

wheres the landing gear?

where are the skidmarks on the lawn?

how come these crappy pilots can to a ten point landing on a dime, not scratch the lawn and turn the plane and its contents to invisible dust AND manage to keep a plane that big from appearing on any security cameras???

oh...wheres the footage of the "plane" hitting the building again?

how did they fit a 757 into a 15 foot hole?

was david copperfield there?

all of your "evidence" of "my mom was in nam and she saw a piece of metal on the highway" is total and utter BS so save it for when you tell stories over drinks..

the fact that none of you can show a wing strike, a tail piece, a tire or anything of NOTE for that matter makes you look foolish.

MSNBC is a propaganda machine for right wingers and fear mongers and not a valid source for anything whatsoever.

when used for quotes i liken it to CNN in as far as its bull sh*t factor.

where is this plane then?

wheres the rest of it?

you havent shown me anything that proves a 757 hit that building....

go google on over to ntsb and see what a real plane crash looks like.

you guys remind me of david belin and the way he thought.

your "witnesses" who "saw" or "heard" something are no doubt wrong in what they "think" they saw.

and as far as the validity of their statements versus THE MARINE PICTURES THAT SHOW NO PLANE WHATSOEVER WITHIN MINUTES OF THE STRIKE I would have to call no contest there as well..

shut your imagination off for a second and go look at the marine pics.

there is no plane there.

anywhere.

again, you all have nothing.

Blair, I don't understand what the namecalling is about. Have I offended you in some way? You emphasized the word "logic" and logical argument is something I can appreciate. You argue that it is not a fact that an airplane struck the pentagon. Those that offer that it is a fact point to the debris as evidence. You discount the evidence and then stop the process. They offer witness testimony and you discount that as well and then stop the process. The process I speak of is logical argument. You say it is not up to you to prove that a plane "DIDN'T hit the pentagon". That is correct. If you follow the process, you will now offer your theory of what did hit the pentagon and you will have EVIDENCE to support that theory rather than merely discounting the evidence that's been offered for the alternative scenario. If you are unable or unwilling to post your own theory of what hit the pentagon with associated evidence, then in all actuality, you really don't....

1. Have the ability to argue constructively

2. Have anything to offer other than your own opinion

Based on what I've seen so far...

1. You point to lack of evidence as some type of proof. That's illogical.

2. You call people names when they offer up evidence contrary to what you believe.

I live in the city David Belin had his practice in for years. My friend still works in what used to be Belin's old office. Have you met Mr. Belin Blair? Ever talk with him? YOU argue more like Belin but you're actually less effective and more abusive.

It's time for you to "Put up or shut up" as you so like to say.

Jason Vermeer

Edited by Jason Vermeer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok first off, i didn't call any one names.

second of all, let me be more specific:

"witnesses" that can neither prove effectively what they "saw" or "thought they saw" cannot be held in any great regard largely due to the fact that the average american is more interested in getting on the news than remembering in great detail they "type" of plane they amy or may not have seen.

the fact that the source for these "eyewitness reports" come from mainstream media or "a friend of a friend"

makes them less compelling.

I have seen those "pieces " of something strewn on the lawn and again, how these constitute a commercial aircraft in anyway is quite beyond me.

The very simple task at hand here is go beyond that. show me where the rest of the plane is. the 6 tons of engine etc etc...

and while using these same photos as a reference, show me how you can fit a commercial airliner into an 18 foot hole, with wings, engines and everything else.

SHOW ME..

In as far as Mr. David Belin, I see his tactic for avoiding questions and attacking people as "nutjobs" or "black op radio fans " in full effect here.

When you don't hear something that fits your agenda, someone MUST be crazy...

His brilliant way with expert testimony is much like that used by defense attourneys in rape trials :

When overwhelmed by the total LACK of a defense, then the Victim MUST HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR IT..

"She must be a whore the way she was dressed" etc etc....

thus, I must be crazy because so far, none of you can show me a plane.

The thing I loved about Belin was his idiotic defense of "eyewitnesses" and "ballistics experts" who were of course "nutters"...

It was great to know he would get wound up like a monkey and freak out like a spoiled child

I'll leave Belin and his pedigree and "skills" for another time in a more appropriate forum.

but lets get back on track here:

all of you have made various assumptions, which not only make you look stupid, but make me laugh at your skills as critical thinkers.

lets assume, so we are all on the same page here, that because your eyewitnesses have no proof of what they think they saw that it is off the table here.

(ask a detective about the reliability of "eyewitnesses" at a crime scene. most people couldn't tell you what kind of car their nbeighbor drives but they see it pull in and out every day...)

my assertion here is this:

if in 50 years of plane wrecks, 98% leave huge debris fields. how is it that this one magically didn't.

i havent asserted any conspiracy either, i simply said that from the "evidence" put forth, it isn't very compelling to believe a plane the size of a 757 was anywhere near the 18 foot hole that was the "damage" tp the pentagon.

and aside from wild accusations from buffoons as to my spare time activities, i have seen nothing offered here except the same tired crap.

so you experts tell me? did the wings, fuseilage, tail, luggage, bodys etc all fold up into a neat package and fold into the building? is this what you are asserting?

i also never said anything was planted or bodies were stolen or it was lizards and UFO's contrary to what Mr Nobel Prize Winner posting on a mssg board might have you think.

it's really simple...

Where is the 757...

Where is the plane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jason, i certainly didn't call you any names and nothing was directed at you specifically.

i don't see any reason to have a personal issue with you whatsoever..

or anyone else for that matter.

I don't have a theory as to what hit the pentagon, nor do i care to speculate at this point. nor do i need one. coulda been a cruise missle coulda been a truck bomb, coulda been the tooth fairy...

What i have been asking for is a simple explanation as to what happened to the debris that should be there that clearly isnt.

I dont find the six pieces of generic rubble being held as the rosetta stone of evidence in this case as being compelling.

also, i think in the case of a commercial airliner, eyewitnesses seem to me to be a little redundant if not unneccesary.

and i also have not stated a conspiracy by lizards or otherwise. if you people are confusing one post on another thread for those here, well thats your issue.

of course this is all met with great comments of my nutted ness or my obvious lack of mental stability which of course was Belins tactic when defending the magic bullet theory, thus my comments about Belin.

what can i say about Belin that is any worse than " he was a lawyer"

i certainly didnt need to know the man to disagree with his tactics for being anything other than diffusive.

anyway, i'm not interested in a flame war...

i just wanna know where this plane is. because when i look, i dont see a plane.

anywhere.

and outside of some googled quotes and some " i know so and so" i still haven't seen anything compelling. period.

so the question must bre answered by saying this:

"we have eyewitnesses that SAY they saw a plane and we have less that one ton of debris..... case closed"

i guess i went to the wrong place for an intelligent answer.

Cheers,

Dobson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok first off, i didn't call any one names.

second of all, let me be more specific:

"witnesses" that can neither prove effectively what they "saw" or "thought they saw" cannot be held in any great regard largely due to the fact that the average american is more interested in getting on the news than remembering in great detail they "type" of plane they amy or may not have seen.

the fact that the source for these "eyewitness reports" come from mainstream media or "a friend of a friend"

makes them less compelling.

I have seen those "pieces " of something strewn on the lawn and again, how these constitute a commercial aircraft in anyway is quite beyond me.

The very simple task at hand here is go beyond that. show me where the rest of the plane is. the 6 tons of engine etc etc...

and while using these same photos as a reference, show me how you can fit a commercial airliner into an 18 foot hole, with wings, engines and everything else.

SHOW ME..

In as far as Mr. David Belin, I see his tactic for avoiding questions and attacking people as "nutjobs" or "black op radio fans " in full effect here.

When you don't hear something that fits your agenda, someone MUST be crazy...

His brilliant way with expert testimony is much like that used by defense attourneys in rape trials :

When overwhelmed by the total LACK of a defense, then the Victim MUST HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR IT..

"She must be a whore the way she was dressed" etc etc....

thus, I must be crazy because so far, none of you can show me a plane.

The thing I loved about Belin was his idiotic defense of "eyewitnesses" and "ballistics experts" who were of course "nutters"...

It was great to know he would get wound up like a monkey and freak out like a spoiled child

I'll leave Belin and his pedigree and "skills" for another time in a more appropriate forum.

but lets get back on track here:

all of you have made various assumptions, which not only make you look stupid, but make me laugh at your skills as critical thinkers.

lets assume, so we are all on the same page here, that because your eyewitnesses have no proof of what they think they saw that it is off the table here.

(ask a detective about the reliability of "eyewitnesses" at a crime scene. most people couldn't tell you what kind of car their nbeighbor drives but they see it pull in and out every day...)

my assertion here is this:

if in 50 years of plane wrecks, 98% leave huge debris fields. how is it that this one magically didn't.

i havent asserted any conspiracy either, i simply said that from the "evidence" put forth, it isn't very compelling to believe a plane the size of a 757 was anywhere near the 18 foot hole that was the "damage" tp the pentagon.

and aside from wild accusations from buffoons as to my spare time activities, i have seen nothing offered here except the same tired crap.

so you experts tell me? did the wings, fuseilage, tail, luggage, bodys etc all fold up into a neat package and fold into the building? is this what you are asserting?

i also never said anything was planted or bodies were stolen or it was lizards and UFO's contrary to what Mr Nobel Prize Winner posting on a mssg board might have you think.

it's really simple...

Where is the 757...

Where is the plane.

Simple question for you Blair, IN all of those 50 years of plane wrecks, how many were 500 plus mph aircraft plowing into a building built to withstand a huge blast? If you find one then perhaps we can compare how such a wreck might look. But until then you are just blowing smoke.

One final question. How big was that hole again? 15 feet or 18 feet? At least tell the same story every time...sheesh.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that the NORTHWOODS March 1962 document approved by

Join Chiefs Chairman Admiral Lemnitzer had so many pretexts for war tactically spelled out.

They included false hijacking, plane switching, arson of US property, a false attack on

Guantanomo and other self destructive and foolish efforts to trigger a response....

Operation Northwoods resembles the 9/11 Saddam Hussein Iraq War series of events///////

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should be noted that some of the eyewitnesses who supposedly saw Flight 77 hit the Pentagon saw a plane and then saw an explosion. They did not see the plane hit the building. Thus what they saw could have been a well planned optical illusion, in which a passenger jet flies low over the Pentagon as explosions occur (from explosives in the building or, as Rumsfeld slipped and said, "a missile") with witnesses assuming the "obvious" without actually seeing an impact.

It is also worth noting who some of the eyewitnesses were. One said that Flight 77 "flew into the Pentagon and exploded in a burst of flames right in front of my eyes." That sounds pretty impressive. And who was this witness? Bobby Eberle, the President and CEO of GOPUSA, "a privately-held corporation dedicated to promoting the conservative political philosophy." Another right-winger, much better known, who saw the whole thing was former presidential candidate Gary Bauer. So there's two eyewitnesses right there whom I wouldn't trust any further than I could throw them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should be noted that some of the eyewitnesses who supposedly saw Flight 77 hit the Pentagon saw a plane and then saw an explosion. They did not see the plane hit the building. Thus what they saw could have been a well planned optical illusion, in which a passenger jet flies low over the Pentagon as explosions occur (from explosives in the building or, as Rumsfeld slipped and said, "a missile") with witnesses assuming the "obvious" without actually seeing an impact.

I've seen a number of ct's try and to find a way to exclude that a 757 actually hit the pentagon but this one takes the cake.

Nice job Ron.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill...It would be interesting to file a FOIA on the photo

of the severed arm and bracelet seen by your friend.

BK: Jack, that's not necessary. The source is a good friend and fellow JFK/MLK

researcher, T. Carter. You could have heard her talk about her experiences and

question her yourself at the 2002 and 2003 Dallas COPA conferences, where she

made presentations and answered questions.

It seems very bizarre that the Pentagon summoned

someone to view such a grotesque and morbid photo.

BK: T. Carter worked with the entire crew on that plane and was very close to the

one who wore the bracelet and it was the bracelet that led to a preliminary id.

Why not the family?

BK: They did that too. The mother receieved a cell phone call from her daughter during the hijacking

and said there was one more hijacker on the flight than acknowledged by

the official story.

How did the arm and bracelet survive

the alleged intense fire which was "hot enough to

vaporize metal" according to the official story?

BK : Some metal didn't vaporize because she also identified plane parts at the scene and

and you can see plane parts in photos, so not everything was "vaporized."

Why

could they not identify "the arm" by DNA testing?

BK: They did.

What is the documentation of the finding of the arm

and photographing of it?

BK: What kind of documention do you want? Maybe you can file a FOIA to

find documention if you want it.

Were other bodies and body

parts photographed?

BK : I don't know.

The FAA requires much documentation

on the locations of recovered bodies in air crashes. Are

there such records?

BK: I don't know. I 'm still trying to get the FAA to answer my questions concerning

the errant FAA Boston Center call to the off alert 177th Fighter Squadron in AC.

There are MANY unanswered

questions.

BK: Agreed, and I've tried to focus my 9/11 questions on the Air Defense StandDown

and the role of John O'Neill, and will continue to ask them until they are answered.

I have no doubt about your friend seeing

the photo. My question is WHY? And how did this

severed body part survive when the corpse did not?

Why was it not consumed by the fire which burned

for 72 hours?

BK: I don't know the answer to that one Jack. I just don't know.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's have a look at what you have said, and deal with it point-by-point:

"witnesses" that can neither prove effectively what they "saw" or "thought they saw" cannot be held in any great regard largely due to the fact that the average american is more interested in getting on the news than remembering in great detail they "type" of plane they amy or may not have seen. The fact that the source for these "eyewitness reports" come from mainstream media or "a friend of a friend" makes them less compelling.

The majority of people did not report a 757; they reported a large airliner in American Airlines livery.

I could link to witness reports from the official investigation, but I suspect you would discount them immediately. If you place so little faith in the 'mainstream media', then let's have a look at reports from PRO-CONSPIRACY sites:

Proponents of the no-757-crash theory have tended to minimize the many eyewitness accounts that a 757-like aircraft flew into the Pentagon and exploded. Many simply cherry-pick one or two accounts that seem to indicate a much smaller plane, and ignore the larger body of eyewitness evidence.

http://911research.com/essays/pentagontrap.html

While searching through wreckage inside the building, firefighters Carlton Burkhammer and Brian Moravitz "spotted an intact seat from the plane's cockpit with a chunk of the floor still attached." Burkhammer also "spotted lime-green pieces from the interior of the plane" within the building.

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

I have seen those "pieces " of something strewn on the lawn and again, how these constitute a commercial aircraft in anyway is quite beyond me.

Just because it is 'beyond' you does not mean it is not true. Could you tell me your experience with aircraft and aviation in order to support your supposition?

The very simple task at hand here is go beyond that. show me where the rest of the plane is. the 6 tons of engine etc etc...

and while using these same photos as a reference, show me how you can fit a commercial airliner into an 18 foot hole, with wings, engines and everything else.

The Purdue study shows how the aircraft most probably went through the building:

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/pentagon...due_lsdyna.html

Then there was the FEMA Building Performance Report:

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

If you want to dispute these reports, you have to show what aspects you dispute and your proof that they are inaccurate. Simply saying 'I do not believe it' is not proof; it simply says that you do not agree.

lets assume, so we are all on the same page here, that because your eyewitnesses have no proof of what they think they saw that it is off the table here.

No, because you have not produced anything that negates their reports. Once again, just saying "It isn't so" doesn't make their testimony wrong.

if in 50 years of plane wrecks, 98% leave huge debris fields. how is it that this one magically didn't.

Firstly, could you produce an authoritive reference that "98% leave huge debris fields".

Secondly, as was mentioned by another poster, the debris left by a aircraft crash site depends on the type of aircraft, the speed and angle of impact, etc. In general, no two are the same.

Do a Google search using the keywords 'Nias', 'Shark 02', 'Navy', and 'SeaKing'. This was a SK50 aircraft that crashed from about a 100ft hover. Very little of the aircraft remains. That was from a low altitude hover into soft ground - not a high speed impact into a building.

You may also want to have a look at what a high speed impact does to an F-4 Phantom II, a 24 000Kg fighter:

http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/video...lery/index.html

f4_2.jpg

Notice how the front part of the aircraft has already been destroyed with no major parts identifiable.

i havent asserted any conspiracy either, i simply said that from the "evidence" put forth, it isn't very compelling to believe a plane the size of a 757 was anywhere near the 18 foot hole that was the "damage" tp the pentagon.

Then you are in the minority. Even most pro-9/11 conspiracy sites admit that a B757 hit the Pentagon, and they claim that the arguements over 757/no 757 is merely a distraction from more important matters. In additon, once more, just because you don't belive it happened is not prooof. You have to give evidence that it did NOT happen.

...and aside from wild accusations from buffoons as to my spare time activities, i have seen nothing offered here except the same tired crap.

so you experts tell me? did the wings, fuseilage, tail, luggage, bodys etc all fold up into a neat package and fold into the building? is this what you are asserting?

See above reference the Building Performance Report and the F-4 video.

i also never said anything was planted or bodies were stolen or it was lizards and UFO's contrary to what Mr Nobel Prize Winner posting on a mssg board might have you think.

Fair enough. Then do you dispute that there was identification of all the bodies aboard but one?

it's really simple...

Where is the 757...

Where is the plane.

You have to try an accept it - unless you can provide PROOF to the contrary - a B757 hit the Pentagon. Two airliners hit the WTC and caused their collapse. The onus is on YOU to provide verifiable alternative scenerios.

If we talk about 'did the US Government orchestrate the attacks', then that is an entirely different matter. I don't believe it, but it is a far more defensible position. In that case, you can agree with the physical evidence; it is only the motive that becomes contentious.

P.S. Don't forget to send the $1000 to Andy & John.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It also should be noted that very little was left of the 767s that hit Twin Towers which were much weaker in terms of resisting lateral loads than the outer walls of the Pentagon which were designed to be bomb resistant.

Although some CTists say the towers were hit by holograms I presume (hope) that even Ron, Jack and Blair reject such poppycock.

No plane hit the Pentagon proponents have explained neither what happened to flight 77 and the people on board if it didn't crash into the Pentagon nor why the plotters would make the switch. Wouldn't it have served their objectives just as well having a jetliner hit the Pentagon? This would have been a lot easier and less risky that switching the plane for a missile.

No wonder many "9-11 truth" sites think this and some of the other more far fetched theories are "poisoning the well" i.e. theories promoted by CIA (?) "disinfo. agents" to discredit the "movement"

As for the hole being too small IIRC (I'll look it up tomorrow) a 757's fuselage is a 14 ft diameter tube. The bolts connecting the wings and tail were weaker than the Pentagon's walls. They were designed to resist the force exerted on them flying through the air at 500 mph not flying against bomb blast resistant foot thick rock faced reinforced concrete walls at that speed.

Len

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No plane hit the Pentagon proponents have explained neither what happened to flight 77 and the people on board if it didn't crash into the Pentagon nor why the plotters would make the switch. Wouldn't it have served their objectives just as well having a jetliner hit the Pentagon? This would have been a lot easier and less risky that switching the plane for a missile.

If 9/11 were an inside job, the conspirators would surely use available remote control technology and not depend on Atta and the boys to successfully fly to the targets and hit them. Remote control would not only eliminate any error by the hijackers but would defeat the airline pilots should they manage to thwart the hijackers. So which would be easier, outfitting a passenger jet with the technology or using a missile that already has it?

As for what happened to Flight 77 and the people on aboard if it didn't hit the Pentagon, what purpose does it serve to speculate? (How about the Atlantic Ocean?) No one knows, or I should say, most of the people who did know are probably dead, just as the Dealey Plaza shooters were probably dead soon after killing the president.

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evan Burton wrote:

[...]

You have to try an accept it - unless you can provide PROOF to the contrary - a B757 hit the Pentagon. Two airliners hit the WTC and caused their collapse. The onus is on YOU to provide verifiable alternative scenerios.

Two airliners DID hit the World Trade Towers, CNN video showed me and the rest of the world that - I haven't seen any video/film showing a plane going into the Pentagon -- does it exist?

If we talk about 'did the US Government orchestrate the attacks', then that is an entirely different matter. I don't believe it, but it is a far more defensible position. In that case, you can agree with the physical evidence; it is only the motive that becomes contentious.

P.S. Don't forget to send the $1000 to Andy & John.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No plane hit the Pentagon proponents have explained neither what happened to flight 77 and the people on board if it didn't crash into the Pentagon nor why the plotters would make the switch. Wouldn't it have served their objectives just as well having a jetliner hit the Pentagon? This would have been a lot easier and less risky that switching the plane for a missile.

If 9/11 were an inside job, the conspirators would surely use available remote control technology

Ron please provide a link to an authoritative source saying that such technology exists for commercial aircraft and could not be overridden by the onboard flight crew and explain how, when and where it might have installed on the hijacked planes.

Please also explain how they got people “imitating” hijackers (Atta and Jarrah) on flights 11 and 93 on the radios and prevented the flight crews of those planes from using the radios

and not depend on Atta and the boys to successfully fly to the targets and hit them. Remote control would not only eliminate any error by the hijackers but would defeat the airline pilots should they manage to thwart the hijackers

The WTC towers were very obviously hit by Boeings how does that fit in to your theory? They were either remote controlled or flown by suicide pilots. If they could hit the towers why not the Pentagon which is 4 x – 5x wider than the towers were.

So which would be easier, outfitting a passenger jet with the technology or using a missile that already has it?

My point exactly secretly outfitting passenger jets with such technology (and not have it discovered during routine maintenance) if it exists would be difficult but if they could do it with flights 11 and 175 why not flight 77?

As for what happened to Flight 77 and the people on aboard if it didn't hit the Pentagon, what purpose does it serve to speculate? (How about the Atlantic Ocean?) No one knows, or I should say, most of the people who did know are probably dead, just as the Dealey Plaza shooters were probably dead soon after killing the president.

Making a passenger jet disappear is not so easy. How could they have gotten it to the ocean with out any air traffic controllers noticing? Also it would have been hard to do this and be sure no one would see it, a plane crashing from 5000 feet would be visible from a 100 mile radius and the crash / splash would be picked up by sonar. Secretly landing it at an airbase and then disposing of it doesn’t seem feasible either it would involve to many people how could they prevent local residents from noticing. ATC’s did temporarily loose track of the plane but there is no way the plotters could have known that.

If flight 77 wasn’t remote controlled how did they get it to crash into the ocean or land at the airbase? It would be hard to convince a fanatical Muslim would be martyr that this would be the path to the after life.

If you accept Jack’s suggestion that the 757 parts were planted, explain how that could have been done without anybody noticing.

All in all it probably would have easier and less risky to use the 757.

Also this explanation is not compatible with this rationalization of eyewitness testimony of a passenger jet hitting the Pentagon.

It should be noted that some of the eyewitnesses who supposedly saw Flight 77 hit the Pentagon saw a plane and then saw an explosion. They did not see the plane hit the building. Thus what they saw could have been a well planned optical illusion, in which a passenger jet flies low over the Pentagon as explosions occur (from explosives in the building or, as Rumsfeld slipped and said, "a missile") with witnesses assuming the "obvious" without actually seeing an impact

A problem with this explaination is that IIRC several witnessess said they did see an AA passenger jet hit the Pentagon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len Colby wrote:

[...]

If you accept Jack’s suggestion that the 757 parts were planted, explain how that could have been done without anybody noticing.

perhaps the same way no one noticed a plane hitting the pentagon?

Also this explanation is not compatible with this rationalization of eyewitness testimony of a passenger jet hitting the Pentagon.

so that we on the CT side of the JFK murder understand: eye witness testimony regarding terrorist attack is acceptable, whereas eye witness testimony regarding the murder of a sitting US president [JFK assassination] is questioned? That about sum it up?

Determing Lone Neuter logic is daunting to say the least

[...]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...