Another thing. These video makers make the old man nervous, they confuse him, and never back off.

They mention evidence to put some pressure on poor Mr. England. They hound him with typical falsehoods- namely a bunch of weak eyewitnesses, who offer stale testimony, long after the fact. Of course, they never tell him of the others who might have a different opinion.

Nor do they tell him As-Sahab has already confessed!

Why don't they let him in on that salient fact?

Typically leftwing propagandists who are trying to scam the public, when the evidence is IN!

al-Qaeda did it. Not some fantasy these guys concoct!

Come on! Time to tell the truth! Not propaganda!

One final note. If I get their gist, and I remember some PFT video that I once saw, someone is suggesting that U.S. military jets attacked the Pentagon (how STUPID!).

No evidence, in nearly a decade, of anything- not one mote. Nothing, but years and years of al-Qaeda.

Anyone who sways from that, in order to exonerate the guilty, has some serious issues.

Leftwing, pro-islamic issues.

Islamic, al-Qaeda radicals have confessed, so move on.

And rightwing attackers don't either.
Your obvious political bias undermines you as a person.

Br Cornelius

This post has been edited by Br Cornelius: Yesterday, 03:50 AM

Response to Q24's post 254, Part 1



Look, from where I, P4T and CIT stand, the official flight path was:
(1) impossible (as P4T has made clear) and
(2) unsupported by all reliable witnesses.




Then you have to start paying better attention. Yes, I do use the word assuming; I do so because we don't agree on many issues. What I'm asking you to do is to suspend your disbelief for a second in order to see how things might be if P4T and CIT are right.




We don't agree on the facts. Given this, I think that it can be beneficial to speculate a bit, in order to explain certain things. It's not like I've given up trying to persuade you of things that I deem to be facts either.




See, unlike me, you want to impose your personal viewpoint as a fact. I do -not- agree that Lloyd England's account was given 'spin'; I do believe that he may well be a person whose conscience is tormented, but that's not something that CIT ruled out.




Again, I ask you; do you honestly believe that if this guy who produced that pixellated photo had really been taking pictures of the event that that's all he would have to show for it? I mean, what did he use, his cell phone? Secondly, pictures is a plural term. And finally, if you would simply consider the possibility that it was a staged event, there are only 2 possibilities; 1, Lloyd is lying, and for some reason his neighbour is backing him up in his lie (the less likely possibility in my view) or 2, he was telling the truth, and that guy was -part- of the staging of the event. And once again, who was the man who split the dollar with Lloyd? Was this the man? What did the splitting of that dollar mean?




I would argue that it ends a whole lot closer to reality of the event then where you're at right now. There is an old saying that I think is rather humorous, but I believe there is some truth in it, especially for someone who was as close to the event as Lloyd was:
"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you".

This post has been edited by Scott G: Yesterday, 07:45 AM

As-Sahab has CONFESSED!

Move on with your USELESS pseudo-counter-terrorism investigations!

Hacks!

Ok Q, Dmole has now compiled a list to rebutt your own that you brought up in post 239, which he brought up in 2 separate posts:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10775245

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10775246

You (or others) may not want to go over there. Furthermore, it's a lot of information and people may be put off by that. For this reason, I've decided to respond to your claims of the first 2 witnesses on your list for now.



Dmole:

ORIGINAL SOURCE?? This shows "impact" how??
Madelyn Zackem (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT) Saw a "silver plane":

The members of P4T wrote a fair amount against your view on Paik. I can't yet take you on concerning this, but they already have. I myself will be reading the various posts they made to get a better understanding of why you are wrong concerning Paik. My reading list has been given sharp focus; the following post of mine essentially shows what it will be:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10775249

This post has been edited by Scott G: Yesterday, 08:37 AM

Q, I just found out that someone in the CIT forum has now also responded to your post 239. Here is their response:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s...p;#entry2305243

and yet you say

you are claiming Boger is an eyewitness to "the official flight path" who "expressly corroborates the official approach"
and you are also claiming the exact opposite with "he places the aircraft North of the Citgo station".

Sean Boger in his own words, “watched it [the plane] hit the building”.

I have explained why this fact overrides where exactly he placed the aircraft.

False. Near everyone appears to agree that there are some problems with the Flight 77 black box data released by the NTSB and I can’t find a serious rebuttal to this anywhere. This does not logically lead to the conclusion that the official flight path was “impossible”. Instrument error, human error or even faked data could be responsible for the black box data problems.

Although clear discrepancies have been pointed out to them, the NTSB refuses to comment and so we are left without a conclusion. I do believe this area can be viewed with cautious suspicion and I’m all for chasing up the NTSB for clarification. Something is wrong here but it is unknown exactly what.



False. The official flight path is supported by numerous eyewitnesses who are as reliable as any other.



Sure we agree - facts are facts. My interpretations are just more moderate than your own speculations.



I never mean to propose that my pure opinion is fact. If ‘The Eye Of The Storm’ presentation contained nothing but Lloyd England’s interview from start to finish, then this would be factual information. Once the presentation has been edited with cut scenes alleging that Lloyd England is a liar and inferring he is an accomplice to the Pentagon attack, then it becomes spin. This is not my opinion; this presenting style is simply the definition of spin: -

“In public relations, spin is a form of propaganda, achieved through providing an interpretation of an event or campaign to persuade public opinion in favor or against a certain organization or public figure.”

If you still disagree that CIT’s presentations are spin then you would need to take this up with the English language.



Yes I believe the picture you are referring to was possibly the only one Mike had available. Yes I believe it would be possible that he used a cell phone to take the picture if you like. As requested, I shall now suspend all logic and consider that the light pole damage was staged and… it still does not follow that Lloyd England as a genuine accomplice would lead anyone to a member of the ‘light pole staging’ team. I do not know who the man was that “split the dollar” with Lloyd England, therefore I’m sure you will speculate he is some masonic baddy who was also involved in the Pentagon attack.

You are reading too much into minor details.

Look at the way Lloyd England was posing for a picture opportunity with the taxi cab sign when he went to revisit the vehicle. This obviously means he was proud of his involvement in the 9/11 plot and no doubt was indicating to the world “Look, I duped you all and flaunt it like this yet there’s not a damn thing anybody can do about it”.

You would agree, I hope, that the above is silly but this is exactly what you are doing with other details.



I don’t want a link to a pile of other links. Please could you quote for each eyewitness to the official approach and impact that I supplied in my post #239 and then provide in your own words an explanation below every individual as to why you perceive them to be unreliable. By all means start with dMole’s links but you will only accept the truth by examining and discussing the eyewitness evidence yourself.



It seems you have made up your mind that I am wrong before even reading those various posts – if this is the case then why bother. If you are going to go over this information then do it objectively. I discussed Edward Paik’s account both at the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum and with Craig Ranke on the CIT forum who stated, “However for the sake of discussion I will concede that Paik's account alone does not PROVE the plane was north of the citgo.” There you have it from the ‘eyewitness expert’. Edward Paik’s account does not prove a North of Citgo flight path and I have demonstrated how his account is inextricably closer to that of the official approach.



You said this of me regarding a comment in my post #218 and I thought I should clarify it. The “bet” was originally the way I was going to play this to draw ‘flyover/no impact’ theorists into making a commitment about how many official flight path and impact eyewitnesses they are aware of and are writing off. Literally in the middle of that sentence I got bored of playing the game and decided to be forthright in that I know there are more eyewitnesses to the official event than there are for the North of Citgo claim. There was no hunch involved – you are making the mistake of assuming I haven’t already been over the evidence.



I can’t access the CIT forum even to view since I was banned. I’m not sure why you would trust someone who banned me rather than dared to debate this sort of thing. Anyway, as I said above, please could you quote for each eyewitness to the official approach and impact that I supplied in my post #239 and then provide in your own words an explanation below every individual as to why you perceive them to be unreliable. You could combine dMole’s information with whatever CIT have provided.

I don't see how "watched it hit the building" equates to being an "eyewitness to the official flight path".

in your post 239 you said this:

Boger was an "eyewitness to the official flight path" who "expressly corroborate the official approach" and "have informed CIT that the aircraft was not on their alleged North of Citgo flight path"

this is clearly NOT true.
Boger informed CIT that the aircraft was on the North of Citgo flight path.
he is NOT an "eyewitness to the official flight path".

If the aircraft hit the Pentagon then this not only confirms the impact event but also the official flight path. The reason for an impact supporting the flight path is that the physical damage, ie light poles, generator and building damage, can only line up with the official approach.



When I wrote, “eyewitnesses who expressly corroborate the official approach and have informed CIT that the aircraft was not on their alleged North of Citgo flight path”, I was trying to capture all ten eyewitnesses that I had supplied under one comment. I admit it is not so simple as I put it due to the eyewitnesses confirming the official event in various ways.

The fact remains that Sean Boger claims to have witnessed the impact and this overrules where many years later his memory may have incorrectly placed the approaching aircraft.

None of this adds up to squat. You dance around like someone of concern, but that is belied by the fact you ignore reality.

You can never bring those people back.

They are gone.

Stop pretending you are contributing anything, to any purpose regarding anti-terrorism.

That's where the real men go.

Not pretenders and fakes.

All the solid evidence points towards the North of Citgo flight path. Since the plane could not have caused the damage that was done to the pentagon if it were on a north of the citgo gas station approach, the logical conclusion is that it did not, in fact, hit the pentagon. CIT and P4T have explained in great detail how they could have been fooled into thinking it hit the pentagon; the timing of the explosion had to have been very close to the flyover.




We all agree with that part. Since all the reliable witnesses put it on a north of the citgo gas station approach, however, the conclusion should be clear; the plane did not, in fact, hit the pentagon.




Q, your language is plain misleading. Further down, you essentially admit that Sean Boger does not, in fact, support a North of the Citgo gas station approach. That is not, as you claim, "confirming the official event in various ways", it's flat out contradicting it. You seem to be resting on the fact that he has said that the plane crashed into the building. What you don't seem to understand is it's much easier for him to mistake the plane crashing into the building then it is for him to mistake the plane's approach path. The logical conclusion is that he was mistaken about the plane crashing into the building but -not- mistaken concerning its approach path, not the other way around.

Response to Q24's post 254, Part 2



I'm not confused; we're not a court of law and I don't have to prove anyone guilty of anything. We're voicing our believes concerning what's the more plausible possibility.




Clearly we disagree on whether my theory here is reasonable or not. Furthermore, even official story believers are conspiracists. Conspiracies simply involve a group of people conspiring together to do something, generally of a harmful nature. While the official story concerning 9/11 is quite unbelievable if one knows enough, it's still a group of people who conspired to do something. So even if you believe the official story entirely, one could certainly still label you a conspiracist. From what I understand, you actually generally believe the mainstream alternative theories, atleast concerning the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7.




True enough. However, if one was aware of what might happen if one revealed the truth, perhaps one might decide to go along with the official story for fear of rocking the boat, as it were?