JREF Forum - View Single Post

TheLoneBedouin · 30th December 2008, 09:01 PM

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

So Flight 77 had to either fly towards the Pentagon and then disappear or it flew elsewhere and then disappeared. If CiT/PfT has no claim to make about where it went they still obviously are claiming it did not end its flight by crashing into the Pentagon. Ipso facto that leads to the logical conclusion that CiT/PfT must be asserting that the aircraft and all on board went somewhere else. The aircraft and all on board were never seen alive again. Again then if this is not because they were in the Pentagon then CiT/PfT is effectivly asserting they were forced to go elsewhere and have either been killed and disposed of or this is an episode of the old program "The Prisoner".

PFT does not speculate on what happened to Flight 77 or its passengers.
See this thread.

Quote:

Either Flight 77, a 757 hit the Pentagon and caused the damage or explosives caused it. CiT/PfT flatly asserts that a 757 did not cause the damage and thus they are asserting that explosives did.
We do know for a fact that no explosives were planted inside the Pentagon to do the damage seen since the 90-100 feet of missing front wall is not on the ground in front of the Pentagon. We do know that there was no crater in front of the Pentagon so we also know that no explosives were planted in front of the Pentagon.

See thread below.

Quote:

Shall I look for the references made by members of CiT/PfT to bombs/missiles being used, or will you concede that these statements have been made?

Please quote where CIT/PfT claims bombs were dropped on the Pentagon, or missles were used.

Quote:

Shall I search for the quotes by Lyte Trip in this very forum in which Craig asserts that Turcois was stating that the fireball 'obscured' his view of the aircraft?

CIT no longer believes the plane flew directly over the impact due to Roosevelt's testimony, as well as the description of a right bank.

Quote:

I'll give you this one. CiT/PfT ignores this aspect entirely.

I note that no one at CiT/PfT has bothered to explain how an aircraft flying at least 35 feet higher than the roofline of the Pentagon fooled anyone into believeing that the aircraft impacted the ground floor, but that was reported by witnesses. Furthermore no witness who stated that the plane hit the Pentagon (of which there are a multitude) seemed surprised that it did not hit an upper storey instead.

Ok, well, it obviously did fly low enough to fool people, but that doesn't mean it flew level with the damage. Everyone reports it being much higher.

Quote:

As stated above I know that Craig has asserted that the fireball hid the flyover. To do so the plane would have to fly into the fireball. The fireball caused by explosives would neccessarily throw dense material up with that fireball. therefore, yes, CiT/PfT is effectively asserting that the plane managed to avoid all of the debris thrown up by the explosives.

In order to have the fireball hide a flyover the fireball must occur before the plane gets to the location of the Pentagon and any large aircraft flying through, or even near such would, of neccessity, cause a tell-tale vortex within it.

Cit no longer believe the plane flew directly over the explosion.

Quote:

Really?
You wrote;

Are you now saying that you misreprersented the CiT/PfT position?

Taken together with the rest of the sentence, it is false. Also, CIT does not claim that all witnesses were necessarily fooled, but clearly the objective was to confuse as many people as possible.

Quote:

Ladies and Gentlemen, LoneBeduoin now states that the position held by CiT/PfT is that Lloyd England is no longer considered to have been an agent or to have planted a broken lamp post on his car, and that no one was 'planting' broken lamp posts anywhere.

No, CIT has hypothesized that the light poles where cut the night before the attacks.

Quote:

I suppose that follows from the CiT/PfT position that no one was 'planting 'broken lamp posts.

See above, the light poles were planted at night.

Quote:

I see I kind of asked two things so,,,,,
Someone saw it or it didn't happen?

See this thread.

Quote:

Do you also know any women who were more or less pregnant?

Well, the "DNA" itself wasn't necessarily sent. More likely the "remains" were examined.

Quote:

Glad to know that CiT/PfT agrees that there are now 4 different flight paths , the decoy plane, the second plane, the lamp posts damage and the FDR. Wow, were those gubmint guys ever incompetant. Amazing that they managed to deceive anyone into stating that the plane HIT the building.

You're argument from incredulity is noted.

30th December 2008, 09:01 PM	#186
TheLoneBedouin Banned Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 733	Originally Posted by jaydeehess So Flight 77 had to either fly towards the Pentagon and then disappear or it flew elsewhere and then disappeared. If CiT/PfT has no claim to make about where it went they still obviously are claiming it did not end its flight by crashing into the Pentagon. Ipso facto that leads to the logical conclusion that CiT/PfT must be asserting that the aircraft and all on board went somewhere else. The aircraft and all on board were never seen alive again. Again then if this is not because they were in the Pentagon then CiT/PfT is effectivly asserting they were forced to go elsewhere and have either been killed and disposed of or this is an episode of the old program "The Prisoner". PFT does not speculate on what happened to Flight 77 or its passengers. See this thread. Quote: Either Flight 77, a 757 hit the Pentagon and caused the damage or explosives caused it. CiT/PfT flatly asserts that a 757 did not cause the damage and thus they are asserting that explosives did. We do know for a fact that no explosives were planted inside the Pentagon to do the damage seen since the 90-100 feet of missing front wall is not on the ground in front of the Pentagon. We do know that there was no crater in front of the Pentagon so we also know that no explosives were planted in front of the Pentagon. See thread below. Quote: Shall I look for the references made by members of CiT/PfT to bombs/missiles being used, or will you concede that these statements have been made? Please quote where CIT/PfT claims bombs were dropped on the Pentagon, or missles were used. Quote: Shall I search for the quotes by Lyte Trip in this very forum in which Craig asserts that Turcois was stating that the fireball 'obscured' his view of the aircraft? CIT no longer believes the plane flew directly over the impact due to Roosevelt's testimony, as well as the description of a right bank. Quote: I'll give you this one. CiT/PfT ignores this aspect entirely. I note that no one at CiT/PfT has bothered to explain how an aircraft flying at least 35 feet higher than the roofline of the Pentagon fooled anyone into believeing that the aircraft impacted the ground floor, but that was reported by witnesses. Furthermore no witness who stated that the plane hit the Pentagon (of which there are a multitude) seemed surprised that it did not hit an upper storey instead. Ok, well, it obviously did fly low enough to fool people, but that doesn't mean it flew level with the damage. Everyone reports it being much higher. Quote: As stated above I know that Craig has asserted that the fireball hid the flyover. To do so the plane would have to fly into the fireball. The fireball caused by explosives would neccessarily throw dense material up with that fireball. therefore, yes, CiT/PfT is effectively asserting that the plane managed to avoid all of the debris thrown up by the explosives. In order to have the fireball hide a flyover the fireball must occur before the plane gets to the location of the Pentagon and any large aircraft flying through, or even near such would, of neccessity, cause a tell-tale vortex within it. Cit no longer believe the plane flew directly over the explosion. Quote: Really? You wrote; Are you now saying that you misreprersented the CiT/PfT position? Taken together with the rest of the sentence, it is false. Also, CIT does not claim that all witnesses were necessarily fooled, but clearly the objective was to confuse as many people as possible. Quote: Ladies and Gentlemen, LoneBeduoin now states that the position held by CiT/PfT is that Lloyd England is no longer considered to have been an agent or to have planted a broken lamp post on his car, and that no one was 'planting' broken lamp posts anywhere. No, CIT has hypothesized that the light poles where cut the night before the attacks. Quote: I suppose that follows from the CiT/PfT position that no one was 'planting 'broken lamp posts. See above, the light poles were planted at night. Quote: I see I kind of asked two things so,,,,, Someone saw it or it didn't happen? See this thread. Quote: Do you also know any women who were more or less pregnant? Well, the "DNA" itself wasn't necessarily sent. More likely the "remains" were examined. Quote: Glad to know that CiT/PfT agrees that there are now 4 different flight paths , the decoy plane, the second plane, the lamp posts damage and the FDR. Wow, were those gubmint guys ever incompetant. Amazing that they managed to deceive anyone into stating that the plane HIT the building. You're argument from incredulity is noted.
TheLoneBedouin Banned Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 733