YaHooka Forums - View Single Post

verbatim28 · 04-04-2010, 05:43 PM

Thanks for the welcome- I didn't think it was a cannabis site, I've never smoked the stuff in my life!
Where you say
"Imagine a criminal case involving a serious traffic accident and you're on the jury. 13 eyewitnesses independently corroborate that the accident happened on the north side of the intersection and not one places the accident on the south side. Where would you conclude the accident happened?"
..if the vehicles involved and the damage they caused are found on the south side, I'd say the south side. I certainly wouldn't say there was no accident, especially since the witnesses say 'the accident happened on the north side'.
The idea that if the plane approached from the northside it had to fly over ... the plane flying from the northside has crossed the road and is halfway to the Pentagon ; the lightpoles are fifty yards or whatever distance away; they have already been 'staged' ,- the night before according to the CIT- and Lloyde England is already doing his gymnastic trick with the self-harming lightpole - what is stopping the plane hitting the building? Is there a forcefield protecting it? A plane flying at the 'northside' doesn't have to hit the lightpoles to hit the building. You can argue that a plane flying on the northside can't hit the lightpoles and then hit the building - you can make that arguement and you can still have a conspiracy - but that is not the same as saying that a plane flying on the northside can't hit the building. If the argument is that there is this directional damage to the Pentagon - that is outlined in a report by the ASCE which is a report into the damage done to the building by a plane crashing into it - when a plane didn't even crash into it. It's therefore a report that is wrong about the single most important aspect of what they are analysing. It is either totally incompetent or falsified. It's credibility is totally undermined -the CIT people even try to undermine it themselves by looking at a few photos and saying this damage indicates that a plane didn't hit the building etc. The two pillars that hold up the flyover conclusion are the witnesses and the report on the directional damage to the building. But the flyover conclusion undermines both of those - the same witnesses say the plane hit the building and the report is a report into a plane crash that didn't happen. It's a conclusion that undermines the evidence used arrive at that conclusion.
The idea that this flyover is a kind of magic trick/deception - flying the plane over the building is only the start - they have now pretended to crash a plane into the building , they have left the plane behind. People are now going to expect to find the plane in the building , wreakage of a particular plane and the bodies of particular passengers. The deception is only starting and by flying the plane over the building you now created the need for a hugely complex deception with cover-up and complicity required from all kinds of people, firefighters to rescue workers to engineers etc. with any number of opportunities for things to go wrong. I have heard someone from CIT being interviewed and his suggestion for why they would fake a plane crash instead of actually crash the plane was that the Top Brass didn't want to risk anything going wrong and their own lives being endangered. How about a meeting for the Top Brass somewhere away from the Pentagon on 911? - how about a golf tournament? Too difficult to arrange that? Eight years on and the CIT come up with a lame effort like that.
I've gone on a bit ....

04-04-2010, 05:43 PM	#16 (permalink)
verbatim28 YaHookan Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Thanks for the welcome- I didn't think it was a cannabis site, I've never smoked the stuff in my life! Where you say "Imagine a criminal case involving a serious traffic accident and you're on the jury. 13 eyewitnesses independently corroborate that the accident happened on the north side of the intersection and not one places the accident on the south side. Where would you conclude the accident happened?" ..if the vehicles involved and the damage they caused are found on the south side, I'd say the south side. I certainly wouldn't say there was no accident, especially since the witnesses say 'the accident happened on the north side'. The idea that if the plane approached from the northside it had to fly over ... the plane flying from the northside has crossed the road and is halfway to the Pentagon ; the lightpoles are fifty yards or whatever distance away; they have already been 'staged' ,- the night before according to the CIT- and Lloyde England is already doing his gymnastic trick with the self-harming lightpole - what is stopping the plane hitting the building? Is there a forcefield protecting it? A plane flying at the 'northside' doesn't have to hit the lightpoles to hit the building. You can argue that a plane flying on the northside can't hit the lightpoles and then hit the building - you can make that arguement and you can still have a conspiracy - but that is not the same as saying that a plane flying on the northside can't hit the building. If the argument is that there is this directional damage to the Pentagon - that is outlined in a report by the ASCE which is a report into the damage done to the building by a plane crashing into it - when a plane didn't even crash into it. It's therefore a report that is wrong about the single most important aspect of what they are analysing. It is either totally incompetent or falsified. It's credibility is totally undermined -the CIT people even try to undermine it themselves by looking at a few photos and saying this damage indicates that a plane didn't hit the building etc. The two pillars that hold up the flyover conclusion are the witnesses and the report on the directional damage to the building. But the flyover conclusion undermines both of those - the same witnesses say the plane hit the building and the report is a report into a plane crash that didn't happen. It's a conclusion that undermines the evidence used arrive at that conclusion. The idea that this flyover is a kind of magic trick/deception - flying the plane over the building is only the start - they have now pretended to crash a plane into the building , they have left the plane behind. People are now going to expect to find the plane in the building , wreakage of a particular plane and the bodies of particular passengers. The deception is only starting and by flying the plane over the building you now created the need for a hugely complex deception with cover-up and complicity required from all kinds of people, firefighters to rescue workers to engineers etc. with any number of opportunities for things to go wrong. I have heard someone from CIT being interviewed and his suggestion for why they would fake a plane crash instead of actually crash the plane was that the Top Brass didn't want to risk anything going wrong and their own lives being endangered. How about a meeting for the Top Brass somewhere away from the Pentagon on 911? - how about a golf tournament? Too difficult to arrange that? Eight years on and the CIT come up with a lame effort like that. I've gone on a bit ....