Perhaps this thread will sizzle out, but I wanted to address this topic and it truly is enormous, so thought I'd create a thread for it.
Citizens Investigation Team's www.thepentacon.com
This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 795 in the WTC Collapses thread.
Ever quick with the insults there shaman_. Apparently you don't realize that such insults speak more of your own tempermental character then of the people you use it against? Anyway, I strongly disagree with your assertion.
Yes, there is. You could say "I don't agree with them, because of x, y, z. Heck, you could even say that you don't like those CIT types. But to go on with base insults to me speaks volumes of how you let emotions cloud your argumentative judgement.
The plane was flown very close to the pentagon and the explosion was timed very closely to make it resemble as if the plane actually crashed into the pentagon. Then there was all the media hoopla that it did, in fact, crash into the pentagon. However, there was atleast one person who saw a plane going -over- the pentagon. The light poles were also clearly knocked over by something other then a plane.
They've done a heck of a lot more taped interviews then any official source. The only case that is overwhelming is theirs.
Citizens Investigation Team's www.thepentacon.com
This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 795 in the WTC Collapses thread.
scott3x said:There is lots of evidence for the flyover theory as http://www.thepentacon.com/ makes clear.
They are probably the most idiotic members of the truth movement.
Ever quick with the insults there shaman_. Apparently you don't realize that such insults speak more of your own tempermental character then of the people you use it against? Anyway, I strongly disagree with your assertion.
You may not like the insult scott but there is no other way to describe it.
Yes, there is. You could say "I don't agree with them, because of x, y, z. Heck, you could even say that you don't like those CIT types. But to go on with base insults to me speaks volumes of how you let emotions cloud your argumentative judgement.
shaman_ said:If I was a truther I would still distance myself from them. They interview people who say that they saw the plane hit the pentagon, they take their own interpretations of the flight path and then conclude that a plane didn’t hit the pentagon.
The plane was flown very close to the pentagon and the explosion was timed very closely to make it resemble as if the plane actually crashed into the pentagon. Then there was all the media hoopla that it did, in fact, crash into the pentagon. However, there was atleast one person who saw a plane going -over- the pentagon. The light poles were also clearly knocked over by something other then a plane.
The witness testimony and physical evidence makes the case overwhelming but they ignore all that and cling to their own interpretations of a few people.
They've done a heck of a lot more taped interviews then any official source. The only case that is overwhelming is theirs.