Posted:
#1476
Pretty impressive kapo.
0
September 11, 2001 (long read)
Posted:
#1479
Quote Originally Posted by smdio:
I was hoping for this question.
Right after I hit "submit" for the original post, I realized that I hadn't included where Flight 93 actually went.
Flight 93 landed in Cleveland at roughly 11:15 AM. At approximately 10:45 AM, all people inside the terminal and waiting areas of the airport were told they had to evacuate immediately. They were told they could not drive or take any of their vehicles. They were forced to WALK away from the airport, and not ask any questions.
Some people refused and tried to get back to gather their personal belongings. These people were told that if they did not comply and tried to gain access back to the airport, they would be shot on site.
At 11:15 AM, Flight 93 landed. At 11:45, it was evacuated and the passengers were taken to an inactive NASA hanger. What happened from there? It's anyone's guess. I highly doubt the government would have killed those passengers, but I absolutely believe that if they are capable of staging such attacks as the ones on the WTC, they are more than capable of sitting down 200 people, and giving them an ultimatum:
"You will not contact your famlies ever again. We will give you new lives with unlimited access to whatever you desire. We will place you in a very undisclosed location and give you new identities. We will watch every move you make and monitor every minute of your daily lives. Should you contact your family or speak of this to anyone, we will kill both them, and you."
Would you agree? I don't think you would have a choice..
I was kinda feelin this story till I read this.
Let me get this right, the bilderdouche group is going to kill 3,000 people in NYC, BUT they are gonna spare 200 and let them live to tell about it.
NOPE.
0
Posted:
#1480
Quote Originally Posted by Texan:
I was kinda feelin this story till I read this.
Let me get this right, the bilderdouche group is going to kill 3,000 people in NYC, BUT they are gonna spare 200 and let them live to tell about it.
NOPE.
I was kinda feelin this story till I read this.
Let me get this right, the bilderdouche group is going to kill 3,000 people in NYC, BUT they are gonna spare 200 and let them live to tell about it.
NOPE.
I also went on to say later in the thread (multiple times) that I'm not 100% sure what happened to Flight 93. I am 100% sure that the governments official story is a steaming pile of horse shit, though.
0
Posted:
#1481
Kaponofor
I explained to you on page 58 of this thread why ever witness we interviewed was left off the NSA video. We felt that there were dozens of people, most of which you mentioned in one of your previous posts, were very unreliable and some of them were even flat out lying to us about certain events (such as Madelyn Zakhem). It is not our responsibility to report what every single witness said to us, especially when we can easily show proof that they are lying. When the question about "why didn't you include such-and-such's interview in NSA" comes up, we have very reliable documentation as to what each person said, and our reasoning for leaving them out of the video. We were not going to make a 16 hour video with ~15 hours of witnesses that were only looking for camera time.
Sports example:
We are going to re-produce Spike Lee's "Kobe Bryant: Doin' Work". After getting stats, interviews, video, and other such documentation for our new release, Charles Barkley contacts us and is annoyed that we did not include him in the documentary, since he claims he scored 78 points, had 35 assists, and 24 rebounds against the Lakers on 12/12/2009. Problem is, Barkley has been retired for nearly 10 years, and it was not possible for him to achieve those stats. Should we have put his claims in the video anyway? No, of course not. His claims were clearly lies and/or fabrications, so instead of make the video even longer by trying to dis-prove Charles' claims, we simply omit them. Sounds fair, right? Imagine there are another dozen or so retired players claiming the same/similar stats and wanting recognition for them in our documentary. Fair to leave them off the list as well, right?
That's exactly what we did with the witnesses that lied to us. We were very easily able to confirm they were lying and/or misleading us purposefully to either 1.) gain some camera time and/or recognition or 2.) cover for one of the conspirators of that day. Had a question ever come up about any of these witnesses, we were prepared to give you any and all information on them, just as I have in page 58 of this thread.
Do you even understand the definition of "Special Pleading", Kaponofor? From wikipedia:
"Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption."
Please look at the bolded text of this paragraph. For every exemption we made during our interviews, we had a very logically and full-proof justification for the exemption. Therefore, we never crossed the line of Special Pleading.
Also, it is not our responsibility to disprove the governments official story. We have our own theory about what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 (as well as theories on the WTC and Shanksville), and we have provided information to support that theory. If you would like to disprove our theory, I welcome you to try. If you're using the argument of "special pleading", please cite the sources for your claims (meaning the names of witnesses, events, documents, or otherwise) that we have omitted, and we will explain to you how and why the omission/exemption was made.
0
Posted:
#1482
Quote Originally Posted by kaponofor3:
The motion reasonable explanation is that a plane hit the Pentagon. The fact that you have to go to the lengths of arguing that parts of the AA plane were photoshopped in -- something that would be easily demonstrated and discovered by someone with rudimentary photoshopped skills (and would like leave electronic footprints within the images properties themselves) -- makes me think that you really aren't considering all the evidence, but rather instead just the evidence that supports your theory.
The motion reasonable explanation is that a plane hit the Pentagon. The fact that you have to go to the lengths of arguing that parts of the AA plane were photoshopped in -- something that would be easily demonstrated and discovered by someone with rudimentary photoshopped skills (and would like leave electronic footprints within the images properties themselves) -- makes me think that you really aren't considering all the evidence, but rather instead just the evidence that supports your theory.
1.) Explain to me how "the most reasonable explanation is a plane hit the Pentagon".
2.) None of the parts found at the Pentagon were ever linked to AA Flight 77. As a matter of fact:
a.) Neither of the engines were ever found.
b.) The wheels that were discovered in the rubble were much smaller than the wheels on a 757 Boeing aircraft. The wheels found were the same size used on that of the Global Hawk military drone aircraft, roughly 2.5x smaller than a Boeing 757 wheel base.
c.) There is not a scratch of foundation damage to the Pentagon as mentioned in the Building Performance Report issued by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Quite amazing for a plane that was said to have "bounced off the lawn" and bury itself into the foundation.
d.) There is no photo, video, or otherwise of Flight 77 being anywhere near the Pentagon on 9/11/2001, let alone crashing into it.
I cannot understand how you make a statement like "The most logical explanation is that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon" when there is almost zero evidence of that occurring. A person of your magnitude and with your education, Kap, should consider all the evidence before making such statements. But I believe you're too afraid of the truth to dig in as deep as I'm hoping you would.
0
Posted:
#1483
Quote Originally Posted by kaponofor3:
CIT Watch: Keeping an Eye on the Citizens Investigation Team
CIT Watch: Keeping an Eye on the Citizens Investigation Team
Did you really just cite this? This guy has been calling CIT a "cult" for years. Do I sound like a member of a cult to you, or anyone else?
I lost my father that day. I'm going this because of that reason, and that reason only. To compare me to a member of a cult is just flat out stupid.
You're getting desperate Kap
0
Posted:
#1484
Quote Originally Posted by kaponofor3:
https://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/critical-review-of-pentacon-smoking-gun.html
https://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/critical-review-of-pentacon-smoking-gun.html
Let me remind you that the man named "Arabesque" has never released his name extremely reluctant to do so.
Craig crushes Arabesque here. I encourage you to read the entire page, but I already know you won't, since you don't read any site I paste, or watch any video I post. You, Kaponofor, only like to google/yahoo debunking websites, which in turn I show you how flawed your documentation and debunking really was, and you then move onto another subject, seemingly admitting defeat on the prior ones.
0
Posted:
#1485
Look Kap, or anyone else for that matter
I want you to watch this video. If you are unwilling or unable to watch the video, then you have no place to comment on the Pentagon 9/11 attack, and certainly have no place in this thread's debate, or any other debate involving the Pentagon on 9/11/2001. Once you watch the video, read what I'm about to say.
Everyone knows that eyewitness accounts are fallible but as they become corroborated the claim becomes exponentially validated. With enough corroboration, ALL claims can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. When we are talking about a simple right or left claim of this magnitude this is particularly the case. To get the side of the station wrong for people who were literally on the station's property would be a ridiculously drastic and virtually impossible mistake to make that would require hallucinations. For all of them to hallucinate the same exact thing is simply not a viable consideration.
I challenge anyone in this thread to prove this previous statement as invalid after watching the video I posted above.
0
Posted:
#1486
"d.) There is no photo, video, or
otherwise of Flight 77 being anywhere near the Pentagon on 9/11/2001,
let alone crashing into it."
Except for the bucketloads of people who did see it close to the Pentagon, even if they didn't see the impact?
"I cannot understand how you make a statement like "The most logical explanation is that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon" when there is almost zero evidence of that occurring. A person of your magnitude and with your education, Kap, should consider all the evidence before making such statements. But I believe you're too afraid of the truth to dig in as deep as I'm hoping you would."
There is plenty of evidence that it occurred. Its been pointed out to you multiple times. You just choose to give no weight or credibility to that evidence because it does not support your narrative. I don't know how you can advance a flyover theory without a legitimate explanation of what actually did happen to the plane. Without that answer, the flyover makes no sense if you step back and think about it -- why would a conspiracy which was willing to kill 3,000+ people in the Towers care about the lives of the people on Flight 77? Whoever "they" is would have no problem killing those individuals, they already displayed a gross disregard for life.
"Look Kap, or anyone else for that matter
I want you to watch this video.
If you are unwilling or unable to watch the video, then you have no
place to comment on the Pentagon 9/11 attack, and certainly have no
place in this thread's debate, or any other debate involving the
Pentagon on 9/11/2001. "
Translation: If you don't want my group's 82 minute video, which is admittedly slanted to support one theory (because we eliminate certain contrary evidence that doesn't support that theory), you can't have a valid opinion about 9/11. What a joke!
Except for the bucketloads of people who did see it close to the Pentagon, even if they didn't see the impact?
"I cannot understand how you make a statement like "The most logical explanation is that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon" when there is almost zero evidence of that occurring. A person of your magnitude and with your education, Kap, should consider all the evidence before making such statements. But I believe you're too afraid of the truth to dig in as deep as I'm hoping you would."
There is plenty of evidence that it occurred. Its been pointed out to you multiple times. You just choose to give no weight or credibility to that evidence because it does not support your narrative. I don't know how you can advance a flyover theory without a legitimate explanation of what actually did happen to the plane. Without that answer, the flyover makes no sense if you step back and think about it -- why would a conspiracy which was willing to kill 3,000+ people in the Towers care about the lives of the people on Flight 77? Whoever "they" is would have no problem killing those individuals, they already displayed a gross disregard for life.
"Look Kap, or anyone else for that matter
Translation: If you don't want my group's 82 minute video, which is admittedly slanted to support one theory (because we eliminate certain contrary evidence that doesn't support that theory), you can't have a valid opinion about 9/11. What a joke!
0
Posted:
#1487
A few of you have also pointed to the Black Boxes that were allegedly found in the rubble of the Pentagon after the collapse. The Black Boxes contain things such as the Flight Data Recordings, which show specific performance parameters of the aircraft, such as airspeed, heading, bank angle, latitude, longitude, and decent.
Let's first look at the latitude and longitude of Flight 77 first. Although the heading in the NARES data report claims that Flight 77 took a "Southern Approach", the official numbers recorded from the FDR shows that the plane actually took a Northern Approach to the Pentagon. Please watch this video at time frame :22 to :58, which shows Flight 77 passing the Navy Annex building and the Citgo Gas Station on the Northern side. This also colloborates the witnesses from the video I've been posting for pages now, which you can view here.
Furthermore, if you skip to time frame 1:04 in this video (the same as posted above), you can see that Flight 77's decent angle was 61.2 degrees. Again, this number is taken from the FDR which was found in the Pentagon's rubble. A bit later at time frame 2:15, you can see that Flight 77's Bank Angle was approximate 5 degrees. Both of these numbers must, without a shadow of a doubt, be true. They were allegedly taken from the FDR that recorded every one of Flight 77's movements on 9/11/2001.
But there's a huge problem. First of all, the longitude and latitude of the FDR has the plane approaching on a Northern Approach to the Pentagon. This would mean that the physical damage to the building, as well as the downed light poles on Route 27, would be physically impossible.
There's yet another problem. The Bank Angle of 5 degrees and the Decent Angle of 61.2 degrees, EVEN IF Flight 77 did take a Southern Approach to the Pentagon (which the longitude and latitude of the FDR proves it did not), the aircraft would have still missed Light Pole #2, and also would have not hit the generator located directly in front of the Pentagon which was allegedly damage due to the impact of Flight 77. This can be observed at time frame 4:32 (for Light Pole #2) and time frame 5:49 (for the generator)
Even the FDR data that the government released to support their theory contradicts their own story.
0
Posted:
#1489
Quote Originally Posted by kaponofor3:
"d.) There is no photo, video, or otherwise of Flight 77 being anywhere near the Pentagon on 9/11/2001, let alone crashing into it."
Except for the bucketloads of people who did see it close to the Pentagon, even if they didn't see the impact?
"I cannot understand how you make a statement like "The most logical explanation is that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon" when there is almost zero evidence of that occurring. A person of your magnitude and with your education, Kap, should consider all the evidence before making such statements. But I believe you're too afraid of the truth to dig in as deep as I'm hoping you would."
There is plenty of evidence that it occurred. Its been pointed out to you multiple times. You just choose to give no weight or credibility to that evidence because it does not support your narrative. I don't know how you can advance a flyover theory without a legitimate explanation of what actually did happen to the plane. Without that answer, the flyover makes no sense if you step back and think about it -- why would a conspiracy which was willing to kill 3,000+ people in the Towers care about the lives of the people on Flight 77? Whoever "they" is would have no problem killing those individuals, they already displayed a gross disregard for life.
"Look Kap, or anyone else for that matter
I want you to watch this video.
If you are unwilling or unable to watch the video, then you have no
place to comment on the Pentagon 9/11 attack, and certainly have no
place in this thread's debate, or any other debate involving the
Pentagon on 9/11/2001. "
Translation: If you don't want my group's 82 minute video, which is admittedly slanted to support one theory (because we eliminate certain contrary evidence that doesn't support that theory), you can't have a valid opinion about 9/11. What a joke!
"d.) There is no photo, video, or otherwise of Flight 77 being anywhere near the Pentagon on 9/11/2001, let alone crashing into it."
Except for the bucketloads of people who did see it close to the Pentagon, even if they didn't see the impact?
"I cannot understand how you make a statement like "The most logical explanation is that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon" when there is almost zero evidence of that occurring. A person of your magnitude and with your education, Kap, should consider all the evidence before making such statements. But I believe you're too afraid of the truth to dig in as deep as I'm hoping you would."
There is plenty of evidence that it occurred. Its been pointed out to you multiple times. You just choose to give no weight or credibility to that evidence because it does not support your narrative. I don't know how you can advance a flyover theory without a legitimate explanation of what actually did happen to the plane. Without that answer, the flyover makes no sense if you step back and think about it -- why would a conspiracy which was willing to kill 3,000+ people in the Towers care about the lives of the people on Flight 77? Whoever "they" is would have no problem killing those individuals, they already displayed a gross disregard for life.
"Look Kap, or anyone else for that matter
Translation: If you don't want my group's 82 minute video, which is admittedly slanted to support one theory (because we eliminate certain contrary evidence that doesn't support that theory), you can't have a valid opinion about 9/11. What a joke!
NSA is "admittedly slanted"? Can you show me where I or anyone else from CIT has said that?
I also show you how Arabesque's blog is nothing but logically fallacy in post #1487. Craig gets into very specific details about how his entire blog is written around logical fallacy.
Are you unintelligent enough to not see when someone is using circular comparisons, straw-man arguments, and logical fallacy, Kaponofor? If you are, then you do not belong in a debate-type atmosphere and/or thread with me.
And also, please answer the FDR claims that I made in post #1490 
0
Posted:
#1493
Smiddyo is a facebook creeper. First he tells kapo he knows his name where he lives where he works etc... then I get an e mail from face book stating that these people may be looking to connect with you and one of the people on there was smiddyo. Stop stalking creeper. Btw how did a plane strike the pentagon using the southern approach anyway?
0
Posted:
#1494
Quote Originally Posted by tillyo:
Smiddyo is a facebook creeper. First he tells kapo he knows his name where he lives where he works etc... then I get an e mail from face book stating that these people may be looking to connect with you and one of the people on there was smiddyo. Stop stalking creeper. Btw how did a plane strike the pentagon using the southern approach anyway?
Smiddyo is a facebook creeper. First he tells kapo he knows his name where he lives where he works etc... then I get an e mail from face book stating that these people may be looking to connect with you and one of the people on there was smiddyo. Stop stalking creeper. Btw how did a plane strike the pentagon using the southern approach anyway?
1.) I don't have a facebook account, so none of them could have been me. Plus I don't think I know your name, unless it's Eric something or other from a dozen pages back
2.) That's the problem tillyo. If a plane or something else hit the Pentagon and collided with it while in-flight, as the government would lead us to believe, it MUST HAVE traveled on the Southern Approach path. This is because of the physical damage to the building itself, as well as the 5 downed light poles around Route 27. The problem?
a.) There are dozens of witnesses that place the plane North of the Citgo Gas station. For literally dozens of people to make the same mistake as to "was it on your right, or was it on your left" would be mass-hallucinations.
b.) The Flight Data Recorder which was allegedly recovered from the Pentagon rubble:
I.) Contained longitude and latitude coordinates that place the plane on the Northern Path.
II.) Contained "bank and decent angles" that would have had the aircraft completely missing 2 of the 5 light poles, as well as the generator located directly in front of the impact point.
Sorry, but I believe the data. I also believe dozens of witnesses did not hallucinate that the plane was on their right hand side, as opposed to their left. I also believe the physical damage is inconsistent with the strike of a Boeing 757 aircraft.
0
Posted:
#1496
Reilly Hutch and Kapo all answered your questions and provided you with links and you act like they dont exist. Add me to that list of people who didnt see the plane hit the pentagon. Except the same video that you seen which is def not a missle. I was just playing about the southern approach everybody knows it was a northern approach as you seen in kapos link he provided which was awesome.
0
Posted:
#1497
Quote Originally Posted by tillyo:
Reilly Hutch and Kapo all answered your questions and provided you with links and you act like they dont exist. Add me to that list of people who didnt see the plane hit the pentagon. Except the same video that you seen which is def not a missle. I was just playing about the southern approach everybody knows it was a northern approach as you seen in kapos link he provided which was awesome.
Reilly Hutch and Kapo all answered your questions and provided you with links and you act like they dont exist. Add me to that list of people who didnt see the plane hit the pentagon. Except the same video that you seen which is def not a missle. I was just playing about the southern approach everybody knows it was a northern approach as you seen in kapos link he provided which was awesome.
An aircraft taking a Northern Approach to the Pentagon had 0% chance of hitting light poles 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 (essentially any of them), as well as causing the very specific damage to the building itself.
Tillyo, you just indirectly admitted that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. Welcome aboard You'll like it on this side!
You'll like it on this side!0
Posted:
#1500
So in one thread we have:
1.) smdio calling the Library of Congress a Congressional Committee
and more importantly
2.) tillyo admitting that "everyone knows" Flight 77 took a Northern Approach to the Pentagon, which would deem it impossible for the plane to have hit the building.
Good stuff !!! 
0
Hot Forum Topics
