Re: No 757 Hit the Pentagon Re: Four More Years of Murder

From: Synchrodestiny's Child (master_at_mason.snuh)
Date: 08/06/04 

Date: 6 Aug 2004 22:19:49 GMT

JJ <radiobuff66@mailcity.moc> wrote in
news:e8WdnfT6TeUxcY7cRVn-pw@gbronline.com:

> Synchrodestiny's Child AKA Tapicoa Pudding wrote:
>
>>
>> Nothing can or does debunk the information on that site. I invite you
>> to try. "***-for-brains".
>
> Everything the eyewitnesses saw debunk the site.

So the eyewitness testimony (none of it court admissable, of course -
hearsay evidence) suddenly puts plane debris on the ground, and accounts
for the many, many holes in the Pentagon story?

That's magical.

> Notice how Eastman
> adds his own comments to those who saw the airliner in an futile
> attempt to explain how they were wrong. No does he have sources for
> those eyewitness reports.

Of course he has sources. Do you think he invented them all? They are
routine, common eyewitness accounts, verifiable all over the web.

But I keep forgetting you lack basic research skills.

> For instance he quotes James S. Robbins, "from his west-facing office
> window, one and a half miles east of the Pentagon, saw "the 757" as it
> was "diving in at an unrecoverable angle." "I did not immediately
> comprehend what I was witnessing. There was a silvery flash, an
> explosion, and a dark, mushroom shaped cloud rose over the building."
>
> Mr. Robbins saw the 757 "diving at an *unrecoverable* angle", yet
> Eastmen, in his infinite wisdom, knows Mr. Robbins is wrong and adds
> his version.

This is a case of one "eyewitness" contradicting many others, who claim
to have see a level approach.

In fact the security camera stills show that this "dive" is a falsehood,
or the imagination of Mr. Robbins.

As does the very next eyewitness testimony you cite below.

> Estman's Comment: The plane was diving. But it must have recovered
> from the dive at the last second, because the pentagon was not hit by
> a plane at a downward angle. The killer jet traveled from the entrance
> hole to the C-ring exit hole without breaking above the floor of the
> third floor!!! Robbins saw the Boeing that did not crash and the
> explosion and smoke made by the killer plane that did.
>
> So if the eyewitness account dosen't jive with your conspriracy
> theory
> just claim the eyewitness dosen't know what he is talking about and
> make up what you wish he had seen.

No, it doesn't "jibe" with the other eyewitnesses, or the security camera
stills.

> And he quotes Christopher Munsey headed South on the Interstate saw "a
> silver, twin- engine American Airlines jetliner gliding almost
> noiselessly over the Navy Annex, fast, low and straight toward the
> Pentagon, just hundreds of yards away." Munsey saw the red and blue
> markings "as it appeared to hit the side of the Pentagon."

Fast, low and straight? What happened to the "dive" of the previous
witness's claims?

> Then to discredit what this eyewitness say Eastman comments:
> Comment: A silver twin-engine plane had to have been Flight 77, seen
> "over the Annex", i.e., over Arlington Cemetery hill, it had American
> Airlines markings and it was "noiseless," but notice the
> indefiniteness: "it appeared to hit the side of the Pentagon" -- there
> are usually psychologically definite reason why people qualify their
> speech, in this case, perhaps, psychological reservations about what
> he really did see.
>
> He throws this one out due to the witness' "indefiniteness". In other
> words, the eyewitness didn't know what he was seeing but even though I
> was nowhere around, I do.

He said it "appeared". That means he didn't see it impact, but he saw
something that looked like it might have impacted.

Maybe you should look up the word.

Of course, this "witness" also contradicts many others, by claiming it
came in "noiselessly", when many others give a quite different story.

 
> For every one of his eyewitness accounts that claim something other
> than
> AA flight 77 hit the Pentagon, there are dozens of others who say
> differently.
 

You haven't really studied the case at all, if you think that.
Considering how ignorant you are in many areas, that is unsurprising.

Eyewitnesses are the least reliable aspect of a case, but in your mind,
they are the most reliable. Even though they contradict themselves.

It's pretty telling.

> Still waiting for you to post the names of those hijackers that are
> supposed to be living and sources to back it up.

 
I did, since you are so sadly lacking in research skills of your own.

Now go and debunk the BBC's claims.

No 757 Hit The Pentagon
http://www.bedoper.com/eastman 

-- 
http://BeDoper.com - BeOS and a hell of a lot more
BeDoper Portal - http://www.bedoper.com/portal