Flight 77 flight path

tj15 · 8th November 2009, 01:48 PM

Have officer LaGasse and others been debunked in their recollection of the flight path of flight 77? He was at the Citco gas station and said the airplane was north of the station.

Sorry if this has been discussed already.

R.Mackey · 8th November 2009, 01:57 PM

It's been discussed over literally a thousand pages of the Forum.

Yes, he has been debunked. This tiny part of his recollection conflicts with the RADAR records of the flight, the FDR records, the damage path, and a majority of eyewitnesses -- including Mr. Lagasse himself, who saw the impact. The fine details are also inconsistent in several other respects (as pointed out even by other truthers). Furthermore, he does not support the conspiracy theories himself.

Bottom line, he is mistaken about the aircraft's precise location prior to impact. It happens. This is only interesting if you're desperate for an "anomaly" to bolster a preconceived opinion.

tj15 · 8th November 2009, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

It's been discussed over literally a thousand pages of the Forum.

Yes, he has been debunked. This tiny part of his recollection conflicts with the RADAR records of the flight, the FDR records, the damage path, and a majority of eyewitnesses -- including Mr. Lagasse himself, who saw the impact. The fine details are also inconsistent in several other respects (as pointed out even by other truthers). Furthermore, he does not support the conspiracy theories himself.

Bottom line, he is mistaken about the aircraft's precise location prior to impact. It happens. This is only interesting if you're desperate for an "anomaly" to bolster a preconceived opinion.

LaGasse Sounds pretty confident in this interview...

http://www.video4viet.com/watchvideo...ve+Information

tj15 · 8th November 2009, 02:47 PM

There are about 8 people in that video that think the plane was north of citco. How are they all mistaken?

This is actually the first time I have looked into this flight path stuff, so my questions may be stupid.

Brattus · 8th November 2009, 03:08 PM

Not only that! But I think you'll find with a little research that all 8 of those people have died strange and mysterious deaths.
As soon as they started talking about the grassy knoll and seeing Oswald helping elderly people cross the street instead of being inside the book depository they just didn't stand a chance!

beachnut · 8th November 2009, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by tj15

There are about 8 people in that video that think the plane was north of citco. How are they all mistaken?

This is actually the first time I have looked into this flight path stuff, so my questions may be stupid.

He agrees Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon.

The real interviews are right after 911, not years later.

Quote:

http://memory.loc.gov/learn/collecti...1/history.html

CIT witnesses contradicting every thing they imply.

American Airlines Flight 77 from Washington-Dulles International Airport crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m. William Lagasse, Chadwick Brooks, and Donald Brennan were Pentagon police officers on duty at the time of the attack. Lagasse was in the process of refueling his police car when the American Airliner flew past him so low that its wind blast knocked him into his vehicle. In an interview conducted in December 2001 , Lagasse described the secondary explosions and the search and recovery of injured Pentagon personnel. Brooks saw the hijacked plane clip lampposts and nosedive into the Pentagon and described the ensuing scenes of chaos in his interview, taped November 25, 2001.

Mr.Herbert · 8th November 2009, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by tj15

There are about 8 people in that video that think the plane was north of citco. How are they all mistaken?

This is actually the first time I have looked into this flight path stuff, so my questions may be stupid.

Myriad · 8th November 2009, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by tj15

There are about 8 people in that video that think the plane was north of citco. How are they all mistaken?

Because people are not very good at judging distances.

Have you ever watched a football game, either live or on TV, and been mistaken about whether a field goal kick was good -- that is, whether the ball went "north" or "south" of one of the goal post uprights?

If you're looking at the goal post from the side (a seat in line with the back of the end zone), you can tell exactly when the ball crosses the plane of the goal post, but it's hard to tell whether it's inside or outside the uprights, especially if it's above the top of the uprights at the time. Because that requires judging the exact distance of the ball compared with the distances of the two uprights. That's difficult.

If you're looking at the goal posts from end on (a seat in line with the length of the field), you can easily tell whether the ball is between the uprights at any given moment, but it's hard to tell when it crosses the plane of the goal post. Because again, that requires judging its exact distance from you. So if the ball is moving left to right or right to left, you might not be able to tell whether it was between the uprights at the critical moment when it crossed the plane of the goal post, because it's hard to tell when that moment occurs.

If you're looking from some other angle, then you have a combination of both problems.

The only angle from which you can be sure to be able to tell is standing under the uprights looking directly upward, as the referees do. (Being directly above the uprights looking downward would also work.)

For the case of flight 77, the same problem applies. Nearly every witness was in a position that requires the witness to judge the distance of the plane in order to tell if it passed north or south of the Citgo. The only exceptions are the people who were actually at the Citgo, and who therefore could easily perceive both when it passed, and on what side it passed on, without having to judge its exact distance to do so. (They're like the referees standing right under the uprights.) That would include Lagasse, but unfortunately his recall of the event including his own position at the time has been shown to be imperfect.

Respectfully,
Myriad

R.Mackey · 8th November 2009, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by tj15

There are about 8 people in that video that think the plane was north of citco. How are they all mistaken?

This is actually the first time I have looked into this flight path stuff, so my questions may be stupid.

Lagasse also believes the light poles were "North of the CITGO." Read his interview.

How are eight people out of thousands mistaken, when interviewed years after the fact by biased individuals? Happens ALL THE TIME.

There have been various ideas put forth as to why. One is that the shadow of the aircraft would have been considerably west of the plane, as the crash happened in the morning. Frankly given that the plane would have been in view for only seconds, and struck without warning, I'm surprised anyone got it right -- but many did, identifying the correct flight path and even correct aircraft.

Another, I've always wondered why the CITheads refer to these alternate paths as "North" and "South" relative to the gas station, rather than "East" and "West." Try asking random people where True North is, and see how close they are. Ten degrees? Twenty? Some folks have no clue at all.

And, finally, it wouldn't matter if a million people claimed to have seen this. The physical evidence is conclusive. That's all there is to it.

This may be the single most discussed, and stupidest, topic tackled in the history of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories subforum. Not because they are popular, mind you, merely because of the sheer virulence of the few proponents. To describe them as evangelical in their beliefs is a gross understatement.

Don't be an enabler. Reject false hypotheses and move on. There's nothing to see here.

beachnut · 8th November 2009, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by tj15

There are about 8 people in that video that think the plane was north of citco. How are they all mistaken?

This is actually the first time I have looked into this flight path stuff, so my questions may be stupid.

All the witnesses point to the south flight path. CIT is the personification of dirt dumb.

Interview with William Lagasse, Fredericksburg, Virginia, December 4, 2001

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...afc911000152))

Interview with Chadwick B. Brooks, Stephens City, Virginia, November 25, 2001

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...afc911000150))

tj15 · 8th November 2009, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by Myriad

Because people are not very good at judging distances.

Have you ever watched a football game, either live or on TV, and been mistaken about whether a field goal kick was good -- that is, whether the ball went "north" or "south" of one of the goal post uprights?

If you're looking at the goal post from the side (a seat in line with the back of the end zone), you can tell exactly when the ball crosses the plane of the goal post, but it's hard to tell whether it's inside or outside the uprights, especially if it's above the top of the uprights at the time. Because that requires judging the exact distance of the ball compared with the distances of the two uprights. That's difficult.

If you're looking at the goal posts from end on (a seat in line with the length of the field), you can easily tell whether the ball is between the uprights at any given moment, but it's hard to tell when it crosses the plane of the goal post. Because again, that requires judging its exact distance from you. So if the ball is moving left to right or right to left, you might not be able to tell whether it was between the uprights at the critical moment when it crossed the plane of the goal post, because it's hard to tell when that moment occurs.

If you're looking from some other angle, then you have a combination of both problems.

The only angle from which you can be sure to be able to tell is standing under the uprights looking directly upward, as the referees do. (Being directly above the uprights looking downward would also work.)

For the case of flight 77, the same problem applies. Nearly every witness was in a position that requires the witness to judge the distance of the plane in order to tell if it passed north or south of the Citgo. The only exceptions are the people who were actually at the Citgo, and who therefore could easily perceive both when it passed, and on what side it passed on, without having to judge its exact distance to do so. (They're like the referees standing right under the uprights.) That would include Lagasse, but unfortunately his recall of the event including his own position at the time has been shown to be imperfect.

Respectfully,
Myriad

LaGasse claims he was at the citgo gas station, correct?

He said he was looking "north" (the opposite side of the gas station that the official story puts the flight path). He would have had to have been mistaken in which direction he was looking, wouldn't he? According to the official story and according to the direction LaGasse was looking, LaGasse should not have seen the airplane at all... Meaning he would have to have eyes in the back of his head to see the plane.

Note: I don't agree that this proves anything... I'm just trying to see it what accounts for this apparent discrepancy...

tj15 · 8th November 2009, 05:19 PM

Does anyone have a list of eyewitnesses that support the official flight path of flight 77? Did any of the witnesses see the light poles knocked down?

TruthersLie · 8th November 2009, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by tj15

LaGasse claims he was at the citgo gas station, correct?

He said he was looking "north" (the opposite side of the gas station that the official story puts the flight path). He would have had to have been mistaken in which direction he was looking, wouldn't he? According to the official story and according to the direction LaGasse was looking, LaGasse should not have seen the airplane at all... Meaning he would have to have eyes in the back of his head to see the plane.

Note: I don't agree that this proves anything... I'm just trying to see it what accounts for this apparent discrepancy...

You see, you have outted yourself in this post.
what official story? There is NO "official" story. That is a phrase of a twoof.

This has been discussed to death... what is highly amusing is that the CIT folks go back to witnesses YEARS after the event and ask them to tell them the details. I have difficulty remembering what I had for lunch last week... but you want me to remember exactly where I was standing, where I was looking and specifically waht I saw YEARS ago? forget about it.

BigAl · 8th November 2009, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by tj15

Does anyone have a list of eyewitnesses that support the official flight path of flight 77? Did any of the witnesses see the light poles knocked down?

Put any claim made by anyone in the context of all the evidence we have; the entire aircraft and all the bodies found inside the Pentagon, plus radar data, black boxes, and much more.

Read Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11
150 interviews with participants and eye-witnesses

105 eyewitnesses
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/PentWitnesses.xls

Statements from 100 (est) eye witnesses, all cited to full text
sources
http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/witness.html

tj15 · 8th November 2009, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by TruthersLie

You see, you have outted yourself in this post.
what official story? There is NO "official" story. That is a phrase of a twoof.

This has been discussed to death... what is highly amusing is that the CIT folks go back to witnesses YEARS after the event and ask them to tell them the details. I have difficulty remembering what I had for lunch last week... but you want me to remember exactly where I was standing, where I was looking and specifically waht I saw YEARS ago? forget about it.

Call me a truther all you want. I'm not.

tj15 · 8th November 2009, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by BigAl

Put any claim made by anyone in the context of all the evidence we have; the entire aircraft and all the bodies found inside the Pentagon, plus radar data, black boxes, and much more.

Read Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11
150 interviews with participants and eye-witnesses

105 eyewitnesses
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/PentWitnesses.xls

Statements from 100 (est) eye witnesses, all cited to full text
sources
http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/witness.html

I can't view the links for some reason... Did any witnesses see the light poles get hit?

A W Smith · 8th November 2009, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by tj15

LaGasse claims he was at the citgo gas station, correct?

He said he was looking "north" (the opposite side of the gas station that the official story puts the flight path). He would have had to have been mistaken in which direction he was looking, wouldn't he? According to the official story and according to the direction LaGasse was looking, LaGasse should not have seen the airplane at all... Meaning he would have to have eyes in the back of his head to see the plane.

Note: I don't agree that this proves anything... I'm just trying to see it what accounts for this apparent discrepancy...

when interviewed and filmed by ranke years later doing a re-enactment. Lagasse was at the wrong gas pump. Ranke had to correct him. Because the citgo security cam video shows him at another pump. Ranke would have taken his testimony at face value had he been unaware of the citgo security cam video which shows him fueling his patrol car. And he wasnt "blown" back into his patrol car. He ducked into his patrol car in fear.

witnesses
http://web.archive.org/web/200709231...b/witness.html

light pole witnesses
http://web.archive.org/web/200707012...iwpb/lpa1.html

tj15 · 8th November 2009, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by A W Smith

when interviewed and filmed by ranke years later doing a re-enactment. Lagasse was at the wrong gas pump. Ranke had to correct him. Because the citgo security cam video shows him at another pump. Ranke would have taken his testimony at face value had he been unaware of the citgo security cam video which shows him fueling his patrol car. And he wasnt "blown" back into his patrol car. He ducked into his patrol car in fear.

witnesses
http://web.archive.org/web/200709231...b/witness.html

light pole witnesses
http://web.archive.org/web/200707012...iwpb/lpa1.html

Thanks for the link about the light pole witnesses.

TruthersLie · 8th November 2009, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by tj15

Call me a truther all you want. I'm not.

You sure are JAQing off like a twoof. You sure are failing to use the search function like a twoof.

If you aren't, then stop JAQing off like one.

You ignore the search function, and are given answers and links to the answers for your questions and then just try to spin them...

walks like a twoof, sounds like a twoof, acts like a twoof... it probably is a twoof.

TruthersLie · 8th November 2009, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by tj15

I can't view the links for some reason... Did any witnesses see the light poles get hit?

Why don't you look it up yourself?

The search function, and GOOGLE are your friend.

Here let me google that for you
http://tinyurl.com/yhnxxoj

take a look at the top 3... 9/11 debunker has your quotes

DGM · 8th November 2009, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by tj15

Call me a truther all you want. I'm not.

The fact that the plane and all it's occupants were found inside the building would make this whole "flight path" argument moot. Would it not?

tj15 · 8th November 2009, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by TruthersLie

You sure are JAQing off like a twoof. You sure are failing to use the search function like a twoof.

If you aren't, then stop JAQing off like one.

You ignore the search function, and are given answers and links to the answers for your questions and then just try to spin them...

walks like a twoof, sounds like a twoof, acts like a twoof... it probably is a twoof.

Like I said, call me whatever you want. I don't care. I know what I am.

I would like to thank all the posters here who have provided links and answers to my questions.

Audible Click · 8th November 2009, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by TruthersLie

You sure are JAQing off like a twoof. You sure are failing to use the search function like a twoof.

If you aren't, then stop JAQing off like one.

You ignore the search function, and are given answers and links to the answers for your questions and then just try to spin them...

walks like a twoof, sounds like a twoof, acts like a twoof... it probably is a twoof.

My assement too. Same modality as we've seen time and time again.

tj15 · 8th November 2009, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by DGM

The fact that the plane and all it's occupants were found inside the building would make this whole "flight path" argument moot. Would it not?

I'm simply trying to debunk this theory about eyewitnesses seeing a plane on the north side of the citgo gas station. That's all... And somehow that makes me a truther.

Note that I never said that I think something other than the official story (I don't care if it sounds like truther language) happened.

Audible Click · 8th November 2009, 05:59 PM

It's your method. There is a search function on this board yet you come here wanting people to spoon feed the liinks to you.

tj15 · 8th November 2009, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by Audible Click

It's your method. There is a search function on this board yet you come here wanting people to spoon feed the liinks to you.

Then ignore my posts.

TruthersLie · 8th November 2009, 06:02 PM

see.. there is no such thing as the "official story."

There is a shared narrative of which tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands) witnessed live and in person, which was shaped by the billions who have now seen the footage.

this shared narrative was shaped by the investigations which followed (the dozen or so), which supplied overwhelming evidence that 19 wacko's hijacked the 4 jets and flew them into 3 buildings and a field.

Try using the search function... it has most of what you are after. Or use Google and then put in the magic word after the twoof.... Debunked and look at what comes up.

DGM · 8th November 2009, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by tj15

I'm simply trying to debunk this theory about eyewitnesses seeing a plane on the north side of the citgo gas station. That's all... And somehow that makes me a truther.

Note that I never said that I think something other than the official story (I don't care if it sounds like truther language) happened.

I never claimed you were a "truther". I was just stating a simple fact that makes their whole argument (and thus your question) pointless. The entire body of physical evidence negates the (notoriously unreliable) memories of a few people. Do you see what I mean?

tj15 · 8th November 2009, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by TruthersLie

see.. there is no such thing as the "official story."

There is a shared narrative of which tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands) witnessed live and in person, which was shaped by the billions who have now seen the footage.

this shared narrative was shaped by the investigations which followed (the dozen or so), which supplied overwhelming evidence that 19 wacko's hijacked the 4 jets and flew them into 3 buildings and a field.

Try using the search function... it has most of what you are after. Or use Google and then put in the magic word after the twoof.... Debunked and look at what comes up.

I know. And I agree with what I call the "official story." I'm just looking for a debunking of this flight 77 flight path theory. Don't respond to my post if it is in the search function.

tj15 · 8th November 2009, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by DGM

I never claimed you were a "truther". I was just stating a simple fact that makes their whole argument (and thus your question) pointless. The entire body of physical evidence negates the (notoriously unreliable) memories of a few people. Do you see what I mean?

I didn't mean that you called me a truther... Others on this thread think I am. Sorry for the confusion.

And yes, I agree that question is pointless when looking at the physical evidence. I'm just trying to get a further understanding of how those witnesses could have been mistaken on the path of flight 77.

defaultdotxbe · 8th November 2009, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by tj15

I'm simply trying to debunk this theory about eyewitnesses seeing a plane on the north side of the citgo gas station. That's all... And somehow that makes me a truther.

you dont seem to be as interested in reading the links people give you as you are in asking "well how could they all the be mistaken" so that tends to set off some BS alarms around here, plus there have been a lot of people coming here asking to debunk something, or "just asking questions" (JAQing) and then turned out to be full-on truthers with all their opions decided before registering, so folks here can be suspicious

FWIW i dont think you are a truther, youve been registered over a year and a half, and thats a pretty long latent period for a troll, im just trying to explain why others have doubts

on topic: everything thats been posted is pretty much all you need (more in fact) and yes, people can be mistaken even to the point of which direction they were looking, especially when interviewed by people who have already decided what direction they were looking

also, we dont know how edited the interviews are, craig and aldo were supposed to release the "researchers edition" of their little video, with uncut interviews, years ago, i cant imagine why they havent

DGM · 8th November 2009, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by tj15

I didn't mean that you called me a truther... Others on this thread think I am. Sorry for the confusion.

And yes, I agree that question is pointless when looking at the physical evidence. I'm just trying to get a further understanding of how those witnesses could have been mistaken on the path of flight 77.

No problem!

If you interview a bunch of people and only publish the interviews that support your view you can (attempt) make a case for anything. The human recollection is an unreliable thing that is subject to sway (for lack of a better word) by the interviewer. That's why real investigators only use eye witnesses to bolster physical evidence, not the other way around.

tj15 · 8th November 2009, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

you dont seem to be as interested in reading the links people give you as you are in asking "well how could they all the be mistaken" so that tends to set off some BS alarms around here, plus there have been a lot of people coming here asking to debunk something, or "just asking questions" (JAQing) and then turned out to be full-on truthers with all their opions decided before registering, so folks here can be suspicious

FWIW i dont think you are a truther, youve been registered over a year and a half, and thats a pretty long latent period for a troll, im just trying to explain why others have doubts

on topic: everything thats been posted is pretty much all you need (more in fact) and yes, people can be mistaken even to the point of which direction they were looking, especially when interviewed by people who have already decided what direction they were looking

also, we dont know how edited the interviews are, craig and aldo were supposed to release the "researchers edition" of their little video, with uncut interviews, years ago, i cant imagine why they havent

I have been looking into 9/11 off and on for a little while now and I usually come here with questions I might have.

I think I have 2 other threads that I started recently... Check those out. I'm not a truther.

16.5 · 8th November 2009, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by tj15

I have been looking into 9/11 off and on for a little while now and I usually come here with questions I might have.

I think I have 2 other threads that I started recently... Check those out. I'm not a truther.

Yet, curiously you seem to focus on the some of the most ridiculous truther theories that are out there, without applying any critical thinking skills to them before you bring them here.

R.Mackey · 8th November 2009, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by DGM

If you interview a bunch of people and only publish the interviews that support your view you can (attempt) make a case for anything. The human recollection is an unreliable thing that is subject to sway (for lack of a better word) by the interviewer. That's why real investigators only use eye witnesses to bolster physical evidence, not the other way around.

Exactly.

Approximately 2% +/- 1.4% of people in the USA believe they have been abducted by aliens personally.

Compared to that, approximately 7% of witnesses misunderstanding / misremembering the actual track of the aircraft is not even faintly remarkable.

This is what passes for "evidence" to the Truthers. They really, truly have absolutely nothing.

A W Smith · 8th November 2009, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by tj15

Thanks for the link about the light pole witnesses.

and click on the "more witnesses' link
http://web.archive.org/web/200409140...le_reports.htm

bottom of that page is this link to "full witness compendium'

http://web.archive.org/web/200212160...witnesses.html

tj15 · 8th November 2009, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by 16.5

Yet, curiously you seem to focus on the some of the most ridiculous truther theories that are out there, without applying any critical thinking skills to them before you bring them here.

Like what? The last three threads I created: One was about the Barbara Olsen call. One was a challenge to truthers here to produce a video with audio of explosions. And this thread.

I thought the two threads I had questions in were valid. And never did I ever agree with the truther side of the questions I asked.

tsig · 8th November 2009, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by tj15

I didn't mean that you called me a truther... Others on this thread think I am. Sorry for the confusion.

And yes, I agree that question is pointless when looking at the physical evidence. I'm just trying to get a further understanding of how those witnesses could have been mistaken on the path of flight 77.

Because they're human not impersonal recording machines.

DGM · 8th November 2009, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by tsig

Because they're human not impersonal recording machines.

How true!
One experiment I like to do with my scouts (I'm a boy scout leader

) is to look at the moon when it's low on the horizon and compare it to what it looks like high in the sky. Low it looks much bigger but. if you use some sort of gage (I tell them to use their thumb) you find it's the same size. The mind is easily fooled by less than obvious distractions.

Crazytimes · 8th November 2009, 09:04 PM

I have a question for the OPer. If you were standing anywhere near the pentagon and a plane flew at over 500 mph at a low altitude, how easily do you think you could place where the plane is/was ? Unless you knew that is was coming and from where, there is no way you could get a good idea of where it is/was.

8th November 2009, 01:48 PM	#1
tj15 Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 425	Flight 77 flight path Have officer LaGasse and others been debunked in their recollection of the flight path of flight 77? He was at the Citco gas station and said the airplane was north of the station. Sorry if this has been discussed already.
tj15 Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 425

8th November 2009, 01:57 PM	#2
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857	It's been discussed over literally a thousand pages of the Forum. Yes, he has been debunked. This tiny part of his recollection conflicts with the RADAR records of the flight, the FDR records, the damage path, and a majority of eyewitnesses -- including Mr. Lagasse himself, who saw the impact. The fine details are also inconsistent in several other respects (as pointed out even by other truthers). Furthermore, he does not support the conspiracy theories himself. Bottom line, he is mistaken about the aircraft's precise location prior to impact. It happens. This is only interesting if you're desperate for an "anomaly" to bolster a preconceived opinion.
	__________________ "Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai VT VENIANT OMNES Last edited by R.Mackey; 8th November 2009 at 01:58 PM.

8th November 2009, 02:43 PM	#3
tj15 Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 425	Originally Posted by R.Mackey It's been discussed over literally a thousand pages of the Forum. Yes, he has been debunked. This tiny part of his recollection conflicts with the RADAR records of the flight, the FDR records, the damage path, and a majority of eyewitnesses -- including Mr. Lagasse himself, who saw the impact. The fine details are also inconsistent in several other respects (as pointed out even by other truthers). Furthermore, he does not support the conspiracy theories himself. Bottom line, he is mistaken about the aircraft's precise location prior to impact. It happens. This is only interesting if you're desperate for an "anomaly" to bolster a preconceived opinion. LaGasse Sounds pretty confident in this interview... http://www.video4viet.com/watchvideo...ve+Information
tj15 Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 425

8th November 2009, 02:47 PM	#4
tj15 Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 425	There are about 8 people in that video that think the plane was north of citco. How are they all mistaken? This is actually the first time I have looked into this flight path stuff, so my questions may be stupid.
tj15 Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 425

8th November 2009, 03:08 PM	#5
Brattus Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: The bowels of death and despair Posts: 1,223	Not only that! But I think you'll find with a little research that all 8 of those people have died strange and mysterious deaths. As soon as they started talking about the grassy knoll and seeing Oswald helping elderly people cross the street instead of being inside the book depository they just didn't stand a chance!
	__________________ Whatever Brattus types is correct. - Brattus Anyone who quotes themselves is way cool - Brattus

8th November 2009, 03:21 PM	#6
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,901	Originally Posted by tj15 There are about 8 people in that video that think the plane was north of citco. How are they all mistaken? This is actually the first time I have looked into this flight path stuff, so my questions may be stupid. He agrees Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon. The real interviews are right after 911, not years later. Quote: http://memory.loc.gov/learn/collecti...1/history.html CIT witnesses contradicting every thing they imply. American Airlines Flight 77 from Washington-Dulles International Airport crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m. William Lagasse, Chadwick Brooks, and Donald Brennan were Pentagon police officers on duty at the time of the attack. Lagasse was in the process of refueling his police car when the American Airliner flew past him so low that its wind blast knocked him into his vehicle. In an interview conducted in December 2001 , Lagasse described the secondary explosions and the search and recovery of injured Pentagon personnel. Brooks saw the hijacked plane clip lampposts and nosedive into the Pentagon and described the ensuing scenes of chaos in his interview, taped November 25, 2001.
	Last edited by beachnut; 8th November 2009 at 03:22 PM.

8th November 2009, 03:26 PM	#7
Mr.Herbert Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 1,357	Originally Posted by tj15 There are about 8 people in that video that think the plane was north of citco. How are they all mistaken? This is actually the first time I have looked into this flight path stuff, so my questions may be stupid. There are too many threads dedicated to Ranke and Alpo... here are a few for you: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=121797 http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=149375 http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=137951 http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=108837 http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=134678 http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=134505 http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=132361 http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=131556 http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=131236 http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=126876 If that isn't enough...there are more here: http://forums.randi.org/tags.php?tag=cit
	__________________ Please go to www.curedfoundation.org and make a donation of only a dollar to help find a cure for a rare autoimmune disease that my son is currently battling called Eosinophilic Esophagitis. Learn more about EOE here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eosinophilic_esophagitis

8th November 2009, 03:37 PM	#8
Myriad Hyperthetical Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 8,204	Originally Posted by tj15 There are about 8 people in that video that think the plane was north of citco. How are they all mistaken? Because people are not very good at judging distances. Have you ever watched a football game, either live or on TV, and been mistaken about whether a field goal kick was good -- that is, whether the ball went "north" or "south" of one of the goal post uprights? If you're looking at the goal post from the side (a seat in line with the back of the end zone), you can tell exactly when the ball crosses the plane of the goal post, but it's hard to tell whether it's inside or outside the uprights, especially if it's above the top of the uprights at the time. Because that requires judging the exact distance of the ball compared with the distances of the two uprights. That's difficult. If you're looking at the goal posts from end on (a seat in line with the length of the field), you can easily tell whether the ball is between the uprights at any given moment, but it's hard to tell when it crosses the plane of the goal post. Because again, that requires judging its exact distance from you. So if the ball is moving left to right or right to left, you might not be able to tell whether it was between the uprights at the critical moment when it crossed the plane of the goal post, because it's hard to tell when that moment occurs. If you're looking from some other angle, then you have a combination of both problems. The only angle from which you can be sure to be able to tell is standing under the uprights looking directly upward, as the referees do. (Being directly above the uprights looking downward would also work.) For the case of flight 77, the same problem applies. Nearly every witness was in a position that requires the witness to judge the distance of the plane in order to tell if it passed north or south of the Citgo. The only exceptions are the people who were actually at the Citgo, and who therefore could easily perceive both when it passed, and on what side it passed on, without having to judge its exact distance to do so. (They're like the referees standing right under the uprights.) That would include Lagasse, but unfortunately his recall of the event including his own position at the time has been shown to be imperfect. Respectfully, Myriad
	__________________ The cosmos is a vast Loom, with time the warp and space the weft. We are all fruit of the Loom, unaware.

8th November 2009, 03:41 PM	#9
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857	Originally Posted by tj15 There are about 8 people in that video that think the plane was north of citco. How are they all mistaken? This is actually the first time I have looked into this flight path stuff, so my questions may be stupid. Lagasse also believes the light poles were "North of the CITGO." Read his interview. How are eight people out of thousands mistaken, when interviewed years after the fact by biased individuals? Happens ALL THE TIME. There have been various ideas put forth as to why. One is that the shadow of the aircraft would have been considerably west of the plane, as the crash happened in the morning. Frankly given that the plane would have been in view for only seconds, and struck without warning, I'm surprised anyone got it right -- but many did, identifying the correct flight path and even correct aircraft. Another, I've always wondered why the CITheads refer to these alternate paths as "North" and "South" relative to the gas station, rather than "East" and "West." Try asking random people where True North is, and see how close they are. Ten degrees? Twenty? Some folks have no clue at all. And, finally, it wouldn't matter if a million people claimed to have seen this. The physical evidence is conclusive. That's all there is to it. This may be the single most discussed, and stupidest, topic tackled in the history of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories subforum. Not because they are popular, mind you, merely because of the sheer virulence of the few proponents. To describe them as evangelical in their beliefs is a gross understatement. Don't be an enabler. Reject false hypotheses and move on. There's nothing to see here.
	__________________ "Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai VT VENIANT OMNES

8th November 2009, 04:12 PM	#10
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,901	Originally Posted by tj15 There are about 8 people in that video that think the plane was north of citco. How are they all mistaken? This is actually the first time I have looked into this flight path stuff, so my questions may be stupid. All the witnesses point to the south flight path. CIT is the personification of dirt dumb. Interview with William Lagasse, Fredericksburg, Virginia, December 4, 2001 http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...afc911000152)) Interview with Chadwick B. Brooks, Stephens City, Virginia, November 25, 2001 http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...afc911000150))
	Last edited by beachnut; 8th November 2009 at 04:17 PM.

8th November 2009, 04:24 PM	#11
tj15 Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 425	Originally Posted by Myriad Because people are not very good at judging distances. Have you ever watched a football game, either live or on TV, and been mistaken about whether a field goal kick was good -- that is, whether the ball went "north" or "south" of one of the goal post uprights? If you're looking at the goal post from the side (a seat in line with the back of the end zone), you can tell exactly when the ball crosses the plane of the goal post, but it's hard to tell whether it's inside or outside the uprights, especially if it's above the top of the uprights at the time. Because that requires judging the exact distance of the ball compared with the distances of the two uprights. That's difficult. If you're looking at the goal posts from end on (a seat in line with the length of the field), you can easily tell whether the ball is between the uprights at any given moment, but it's hard to tell when it crosses the plane of the goal post. Because again, that requires judging its exact distance from you. So if the ball is moving left to right or right to left, you might not be able to tell whether it was between the uprights at the critical moment when it crossed the plane of the goal post, because it's hard to tell when that moment occurs. If you're looking from some other angle, then you have a combination of both problems. The only angle from which you can be sure to be able to tell is standing under the uprights looking directly upward, as the referees do. (Being directly above the uprights looking downward would also work.) For the case of flight 77, the same problem applies. Nearly every witness was in a position that requires the witness to judge the distance of the plane in order to tell if it passed north or south of the Citgo. The only exceptions are the people who were actually at the Citgo, and who therefore could easily perceive both when it passed, and on what side it passed on, without having to judge its exact distance to do so. (They're like the referees standing right under the uprights.) That would include Lagasse, but unfortunately his recall of the event including his own position at the time has been shown to be imperfect. Respectfully, Myriad LaGasse claims he was at the citgo gas station, correct? He said he was looking "north" (the opposite side of the gas station that the official story puts the flight path). He would have had to have been mistaken in which direction he was looking, wouldn't he? According to the official story and according to the direction LaGasse was looking, LaGasse should not have seen the airplane at all... Meaning he would have to have eyes in the back of his head to see the plane. Note: I don't agree that this proves anything... I'm just trying to see it what accounts for this apparent discrepancy...
tj15 Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 425

8th November 2009, 05:19 PM	#12
tj15 Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 425	Does anyone have a list of eyewitnesses that support the official flight path of flight 77? Did any of the witnesses see the light poles knocked down?
tj15 Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 425

8th November 2009, 05:20 PM	#13
TruthersLie This space for rent. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates Posts: 3,720	Originally Posted by tj15 LaGasse claims he was at the citgo gas station, correct? He said he was looking "north" (the opposite side of the gas station that the official story puts the flight path). He would have had to have been mistaken in which direction he was looking, wouldn't he? *According to the official story* and according to the direction LaGasse was looking, LaGasse should not have seen the airplane at all... Meaning he would have to have eyes in the back of his head to see the plane. Note: I don't agree that this proves anything... I'm just trying to see it what accounts for this apparent discrepancy... You see, you have outted yourself in this post. what official story? There is NO "official" story. That is a phrase of a twoof. This has been discussed to death... what is highly amusing is that the CIT folks go back to witnesses YEARS after the event and ask them to tell them the details. I have difficulty remembering what I had for lunch last week... but you want me to remember exactly where I was standing, where I was looking and specifically waht I saw YEARS ago? forget about it.

8th November 2009, 05:26 PM	#14
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,398	Originally Posted by tj15 Does anyone have a list of eyewitnesses that support the official flight path of flight 77? Did any of the witnesses see the light poles knocked down? Put any claim made by anyone in the context of all the evidence we have; the entire aircraft and all the bodies found inside the Pentagon, plus radar data, black boxes, and much more. Read Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11 150 interviews with participants and eye-witnesses 105 eyewitnesses http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/PentWitnesses.xls Statements from 100 (est) eye witnesses, all cited to full text sources http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/witness.html
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,398	__________________ ------ Eric Pode of Croydon Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief, Dept of Redundancy Dept.

8th November 2009, 05:32 PM	#15
tj15 Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 425	Originally Posted by TruthersLie You see, you have outted yourself in this post. what official story? There is NO "official" story. That is a phrase of a twoof. This has been discussed to death... what is highly amusing is that the CIT folks go back to witnesses YEARS after the event and ask them to tell them the details. I have difficulty remembering what I had for lunch last week... but you want me to remember exactly where I was standing, where I was looking and specifically waht I saw YEARS ago? forget about it. Call me a truther all you want. I'm not.
tj15 Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 425

8th November 2009, 05:34 PM	#16
tj15 Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 425	Originally Posted by BigAl Put any claim made by anyone in the context of all the evidence we have; the entire aircraft and all the bodies found inside the Pentagon, plus radar data, black boxes, and much more. Read Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11 150 interviews with participants and eye-witnesses 105 eyewitnesses http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/PentWitnesses.xls Statements from 100 (est) eye witnesses, all cited to full text sources http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/witness.html I can't view the links for some reason... Did any witnesses see the light poles get hit?
tj15 Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 425

8th November 2009, 05:35 PM	#17
A W Smith Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Central Jersey Posts: 7,031	Originally Posted by tj15 LaGasse claims he was at the citgo gas station, correct? He said he was looking "north" (the opposite side of the gas station that the official story puts the flight path). He would have had to have been mistaken in which direction he was looking, wouldn't he? According to the official story and according to the direction LaGasse was looking, LaGasse should not have seen the airplane at all... Meaning he would have to have eyes in the back of his head to see the plane. Note: I don't agree that this proves anything... I'm just trying to see it what accounts for this apparent discrepancy... when interviewed and filmed by ranke years later doing a re-enactment. Lagasse was at the wrong gas pump. Ranke had to correct him. Because the citgo security cam video shows him at another pump. Ranke would have taken his testimony at face value had he been unaware of the citgo security cam video which shows him fueling his patrol car. And he wasnt "blown" back into his patrol car. He ducked into his patrol car in fear. witnesses http://web.archive.org/web/200709231...b/witness.html light pole witnesses http://web.archive.org/web/200707012...iwpb/lpa1.html
	__________________ 911 resource site by Mark Roberts http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance. Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane? Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude. Last edited by A W Smith; 8th November 2009 at 05:39 PM.

8th November 2009, 05:40 PM	#18
tj15 Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 425	Originally Posted by A W Smith when interviewed and filmed by ranke years later doing a re-enactment. Lagasse was at the wrong gas pump. Ranke had to correct him. Because the citgo security cam video shows him at another pump. Ranke would have taken his testimony at face value had he been unaware of the citgo security cam video which shows him fueling his patrol car. And he wasnt "blown" back into his patrol car. He ducked into his patrol car in fear. witnesses http://web.archive.org/web/200709231...b/witness.html light pole witnesses http://web.archive.org/web/200707012...iwpb/lpa1.html Thanks for the link about the light pole witnesses.
tj15 Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 425

8th November 2009, 05:47 PM	#19
TruthersLie This space for rent. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates Posts: 3,720	Originally Posted by tj15 Call me a truther all you want. I'm not. You sure are JAQing off like a twoof. You sure are failing to use the search function like a twoof. If you aren't, then stop JAQing off like one. You ignore the search function, and are given answers and links to the answers for your questions and then just try to spin them... walks like a twoof, sounds like a twoof, acts like a twoof... it probably is a twoof.

8th November 2009, 05:50 PM	#20
TruthersLie This space for rent. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates Posts: 3,720	Originally Posted by tj15 I can't view the links for some reason... Did any witnesses see the light poles get hit? Why don't you look it up yourself? The search function, and GOOGLE are your friend. Here let me google that for you http://tinyurl.com/yhnxxoj take a look at the top 3... 9/11 debunker has your quotes
	Last edited by TruthersLie; 8th November 2009 at 05:52 PM.

8th November 2009, 05:52 PM	#21
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,347	Originally Posted by tj15 Call me a truther all you want. I'm not. The fact that the plane and all it's occupants were found inside the building would make this whole "flight path" argument moot. Would it not?
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

8th November 2009, 05:55 PM	#23
Audible Click The gap in the plot Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: BFE Posts: 3,546	Originally Posted by TruthersLie You sure are JAQing off like a twoof. You sure are failing to use the search function like a twoof. If you aren't, then stop JAQing off like one. You ignore the search function, and are given answers and links to the answers for your questions and then just try to spin them... walks like a twoof, sounds like a twoof, acts like a twoof... it probably is a twoof. My assement too. Same modality as we've seen time and time again.
	__________________ "Thank you, darling heart. Love you." Baba Australasian Skeptics Forum

8th November 2009, 05:56 PM	#24
tj15 Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 425	Originally Posted by DGM The fact that the plane and all it's occupants were found inside the building would make this whole "flight path" argument moot. Would it not? I'm simply trying to debunk this theory about eyewitnesses seeing a plane on the north side of the citgo gas station. That's all... And somehow that makes me a truther. Note that I never said that I think something other than the official story (I don't care if it sounds like truther language) happened.
tj15 Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 425

8th November 2009, 05:59 PM	#25
Audible Click The gap in the plot Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: BFE Posts: 3,546	It's your method. There is a search function on this board yet you come here wanting people to spoon feed the liinks to you.
	__________________ "Thank you, darling heart. Love you." Baba Australasian Skeptics Forum

8th November 2009, 06:00 PM	#26
tj15 Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 425	Originally Posted by Audible Click It's your method. There is a search function on this board yet you come here wanting people to spoon feed the liinks to you. Then ignore my posts.
tj15 Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 425

8th November 2009, 06:02 PM	#27
TruthersLie This space for rent. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates Posts: 3,720	see.. there is no such thing as the "official story." There is a shared narrative of which tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands) witnessed live and in person, which was shaped by the billions who have now seen the footage. this shared narrative was shaped by the investigations which followed (the dozen or so), which supplied overwhelming evidence that 19 wacko's hijacked the 4 jets and flew them into 3 buildings and a field. Try using the search function... it has most of what you are after. Or use Google and then put in the magic word after the twoof.... Debunked and look at what comes up.

8th November 2009, 06:03 PM	#28
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,347	Originally Posted by tj15 I'm simply trying to debunk this theory about eyewitnesses seeing a plane on the north side of the citgo gas station. That's all... And somehow that makes me a truther. Note that I never said that I think something other than the official story (I don't care if it sounds like truther language) happened. I never claimed you were a "truther". I was just stating a simple fact that makes their whole argument (and thus your question) pointless. The entire body of physical evidence negates the (notoriously unreliable) memories of a few people. Do you see what I mean?
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

8th November 2009, 06:04 PM	#29
tj15 Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 425	Originally Posted by TruthersLie see.. there is no such thing as the "official story." There is a shared narrative of which tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands) witnessed live and in person, which was shaped by the billions who have now seen the footage. this shared narrative was shaped by the investigations which followed (the dozen or so), which supplied overwhelming evidence that 19 wacko's hijacked the 4 jets and flew them into 3 buildings and a field. Try using the search function... it has most of what you are after. Or use Google and then put in the magic word after the twoof.... Debunked and look at what comes up. I know. And I agree with what I call the "official story." I'm just looking for a debunking of this flight 77 flight path theory. Don't respond to my post if it is in the search function.
tj15 Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 425

8th November 2009, 06:07 PM	#30
tj15 Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 425	Originally Posted by DGM I never claimed you were a "truther". I was just stating a simple fact that makes their whole argument (and thus your question) pointless. The entire body of physical evidence negates the (notoriously unreliable) memories of a few people. Do you see what I mean? I didn't mean that you called me a truther... Others on this thread think I am. Sorry for the confusion. And yes, I agree that question is pointless when looking at the physical evidence. I'm just trying to get a further understanding of how those witnesses could have been mistaken on the path of flight 77.
tj15 Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 425

8th November 2009, 06:09 PM	#31
defaultdotxbe Drunken Shikigami Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Dark Side of the Sun Posts: 7,482	Originally Posted by tj15 I'm simply trying to debunk this theory about eyewitnesses seeing a plane on the north side of the citgo gas station. That's all... And somehow that makes me a truther. you dont seem to be as interested in reading the links people give you as you are in asking "well how could they all the be mistaken" so that tends to set off some BS alarms around here, plus there have been a lot of people coming here asking to debunk something, or "just asking questions" (JAQing) and then turned out to be full-on truthers with all their opions decided before registering, so folks here can be suspicious FWIW i dont think you are a truther, youve been registered over a year and a half, and thats a pretty long latent period for a troll, im just trying to explain why others have doubts on topic: everything thats been posted is pretty much all you need (more in fact) and yes, people can be mistaken even to the point of which direction they were looking, especially when interviewed by people who have already decided what direction they were looking also, we dont know how edited the interviews are, craig and aldo were supposed to release the "researchers edition" of their little video, with uncut interviews, years ago, i cant imagine why they havent
	__________________ I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein Last edited by defaultdotxbe; 8th November 2009 at 06:11 PM.

8th November 2009, 06:14 PM	#32
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,347	Originally Posted by tj15 I didn't mean that you called me a truther... Others on this thread think I am. Sorry for the confusion. And yes, I agree that question is pointless when looking at the physical evidence. I'm just trying to get a further understanding of how those witnesses could have been mistaken on the path of flight 77. No problem! If you interview a bunch of people and only publish the interviews that support your view you can (attempt) make a case for anything. The human recollection is an unreliable thing that is subject to sway (for lack of a better word) by the interviewer. That's why real investigators only use eye witnesses to bolster physical evidence, not the other way around.
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley Last edited by DGM; 8th November 2009 at 06:15 PM.

8th November 2009, 06:14 PM	#33
tj15 Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 425	Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe you dont seem to be as interested in reading the links people give you as you are in asking "well how could they all the be mistaken" so that tends to set off some BS alarms around here, plus there have been a lot of people coming here asking to debunk something, or "just asking questions" (JAQing) and then turned out to be full-on truthers with all their opions decided before registering, so folks here can be suspicious FWIW i dont think you are a truther, youve been registered over a year and a half, and thats a pretty long latent period for a troll, im just trying to explain why others have doubts on topic: everything thats been posted is pretty much all you need (more in fact) and yes, people can be mistaken even to the point of which direction they were looking, especially when interviewed by people who have already decided what direction they were looking also, we dont know how edited the interviews are, craig and aldo were supposed to release the "researchers edition" of their little video, with uncut interviews, years ago, i cant imagine why they havent I have been looking into 9/11 off and on for a little while now and I usually come here with questions I might have. I think I have 2 other threads that I started recently... Check those out. I'm not a truther.
tj15 Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 425

8th November 2009, 06:23 PM	#34
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,797	Originally Posted by tj15 I have been looking into 9/11 off and on for a little while now and I usually come here with questions I might have. I think I have 2 other threads that I started recently... Check those out. I'm not a truther. Yet, curiously you seem to focus on the some of the most ridiculous truther theories that are out there, without applying any critical thinking skills to them before you bring them here.
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,797

8th November 2009, 06:24 PM	#35
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857	Originally Posted by DGM If you interview a bunch of people and only publish the interviews that support your view you can (attempt) make a case for anything. The human recollection is an unreliable thing that is subject to sway (for lack of a better word) by the interviewer. That's why real investigators only use eye witnesses to bolster physical evidence, not the other way around. Exactly. Approximately 2% +/- 1.4% of people in the USA believe they have been abducted by aliens personally. Compared to that, approximately 7% of witnesses misunderstanding / misremembering the actual track of the aircraft is not even faintly remarkable. This is what passes for "evidence" to the Truthers. They really, truly have absolutely nothing.
	__________________ "Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai VT VENIANT OMNES

8th November 2009, 06:26 PM	#36
A W Smith Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Central Jersey Posts: 7,031	Originally Posted by tj15 Thanks for the link about the light pole witnesses. and click on the "more witnesses' link http://web.archive.org/web/200409140...le_reports.htm bottom of that page is this link to "full witness compendium' http://web.archive.org/web/200212160...witnesses.html
	__________________ 911 resource site by Mark Roberts http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance. Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane? Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.