Conspiracies, sheeple, the universe and everything

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Mittelwaechter

We can assume the plane was somewhere close to him, but we should NOT consider his claims to be a fact.

Agreed?

Yes, I agree the plane was somewhere near him.

Can't say I agree with the reason why Ed Paik said what he said.

My take on it is that either it was edited out or he was lead so that he didn't think
it was necessary to say where he was at the time, for example, maybe he was
just asked to come outside and show the path he thinks the plane took.

I don't have anything to back that up, though. I tried to look for the interview
transcript on CIT's site as they say in the video they have them, but I couldn't
find Ed Paik's interview transcript.

[Mittelwaechter]

Just to avoid a s...storm, some info concerning my Asian claim:

http://www.fastenseatbelts.eu/en/continent/1/6/

http://asiapacificglobal.com/2013/05...-indirect-nos/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2954668/

____

Dowly - I think I can't help you with that one. I may have visited such a site the last 12 hours, but I can't provide a link.

____

I have a question for native English/American speakers.

I see sometimes some unusual grammer here at Subsim.
I don't know if the writer is English or American, but there seems to be some slang confusing "was" and "were", like "We was hiding in the conning tower..."
In this context - is it possible (or maybe even common in dialects and slangs) to get a "was" instead of a "would have been"?
Like "He was speeding down the road or he would have been late" to be transformed into "He was speeding down the road or he was late"?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Mittelwaechter

I don't know if the writer is English or American, but there seems to be some slang confusing "was" and "were", like "We was hiding in the conning tower..."

Not slang, but bad usage (or grammar if you like). I was. He was. She was. You were. We were. They were.

In this context - is it possible (or maybe even common in dialects and slangs) to get a "was" instead of a "would have been"?

Normally no. "He was" means that he actually was there. "He would have been" means that was his destination but he didn't make it, or that he wanted to be there. "He would have been hiding, but he didn't get there in time."

Like "He was speeding down the road or he would have been late" to be transformed into "He was speeding down the road or he was late"?

No, neither one of those is considered good English. "He was speeding down the road because he didn't want to be late" works. The use of "or" always means there's an "either" as well, even if it's not stated. "He was speeding down the road" says what he was doing. "Or" would be used if he was doing something else: "He was speeding down the road or he was sitting in his car." "or he was late" would be a contrast to something similar "He was early or he was late."

"Or" always compares two similar things. "He is or he isn't." Your "speeding down the road" question would be like saying "He is or the cat is hungry."

I'm sorry if that's even more confusing. I'm not sure how to show it without using a lot more examples.

[Mittelwaechter]

Thanks for the explanation Steve.

Maybe I should have been more precise. I want to know if this happens often, if it is common especially when people speak. It may be more casual to use a "was" instead a complicated construct like "would have been".

It is bad grammar I know, but is it more or less common?
Is it more usual if you are distracted, confused or unconcentrated, even if you are a sophisticated person?

Edit: Stupid me! He was speeding down the road else he would have been late - and - He was speeding down the road else he was late - should have been my question.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Mittelwaechter

Maybe I should have been more precise. I want to know if this happens often, if it is common especially when people speak. It may be more casual to use a "was" instead a complicated construct like "would have been".

It is bad grammar I know, but is it more or less common?
Is it more usual if you are distracted, confused or unconcentrated, even if you are a sophisticated person?

No, I don't think it's common at all. In fact I can't say I've ever heard someone do that. "I was there" and "I would have been there" mean to very different things.

Edit: Stupid me! He was speeding down the road else he would have been late - and - He was speeding down the road else he was late - should have been my question.

No, and now I begin to understand your confusion. "Or" is not good for that sentence, and "Else" is not , but "Or else" might be. It's a phrase that uses both words, and it is the correct one for some uses. Unfortunately the sentence "He was speeding down the road or else he would be late" works, but is awkward and uncomfortable. The other, "...or else he was late" is not good at all. The best would be the one I said in the earlier post: "...so he wouldn't be late."

[Mittelwaechter]

Ok, I see. Thanks again Steve.

I tried to understand the problem with Pentagon Police Officer Lagrasse and his statement concerning the light poles.


Dowly,

before you invest your precious time into this, to convince me I think we should close our 9/11 discussion.

I was reading some stuff here

http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com...e-of-disunity/

and it seems to be very difficult to proof anything at all.

It's just a waste of time for us and it's over our limits anyway. At least I don't want to truth me crazy.
My Englisch is not good enough to understand some of the claims without constantly checking the dictionary.

I think the CIT is a really good effort, particularly for amatuers. But there is too much nick nack and distraction mixed in the discussion on a bunch of other boards. It's hard to find through for me. And we would end with endless quoting and requoting - and I hate that.

Let's agree to disagree.

[Platapus]

People here are overlooking one clear conspiracy concerning the 11 Sep 2001 attacks.

The attack happened on 11 Sep 2001, a Tuesday. A day not many of us will forget.

But the next year, the government decided to commemorate it on a Wednesday. Kinda got their day mixed up.

To compound the cover up, the government could not decide which day the attack occurred on. The cover-up commemorations continued for years after the attack

2003 Thursday
2004 Saturday. What happened to Friday? It's a smoking gun of conspiracy! How much of a "leap" of faith does the government expect from its citizens???
2005 Sunday
2006 Monday The just can't keep their story straight! The evidence is there!
2007 Tuesday They finally realized that their coverup failed and decided to commemorate the attack on the day it actually happened.
2008 Wednesday. Did the government really think we would not notice???
This has been continuing every year since the attack.

Only when confronted with the evidence of the coverup in 2012, did the government acknowledge that the attack occurred on the actual day Tuesday.

But yeah, in 2013, back to the old cover-up. The attack "happened" on a Wednesday.

We are on to the government's plan! In 2018, the will of the people shall expose this coverup. How much do you wanna bet that the government, in a feeble attempt to pacify the True Believers will suddenly commemorate the attack on a Tuesday.. AS WE ALL KNOW IT HAPPENED ON A TUESDAY!!

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Mittelwaechter

Let's agree to disagree.

Fair enough.

But I do want to leave you with this quote from Ryan Mackey over at JREF forums:

So let me see if I've got it straight:

According to the Citzen Investigation Team, the Government or whomever wanted to fool the world into thinking American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, along a certain heading that took it through several light poles and low over the freeway just prior to impact.

To do this, They executed the following:

• They flew an aircraft over the Pentagon

• The aircraft traveled along a different heading entirely, on the opposite side of a visible landmark (viz. the Citgo station)

• The aircraft passed nowhere near the light poles in question

• The light poles were sabotaged anyway, in some completely different fashion than aircraft impact

• One light pole was staged to penetrate the windshield of a car, in traffic, again despite the actual aircraft not passing anywhere near overhead

• A large amount of explosives was detonated as the aircraft passed by

• The aircraft then flew away over the Pentagon, where it was allegedly sighted by at least one individual

• The explosion or whatever demolition carried out at the Pentagon left a hole far too small to have been caused by AA 77

• A readable flight data recorder (FDR) was planted (along with an insufficient amount of aircraft debris) that allegedly conflicts with both Their false story and the track of the actual aircraft

And, finally,

• The aircraft in question was deliberately painted so as to not even resemble an American Airlines jetliner.

[Catfish]

^ of course. Operation Northwoods and Mongoose, anyone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

[Mittelwaechter]

Sorry Dowly, I have some good reason to let you not away with it.

Ryan Mackey is a clever guy.

At first I was baffled.

And then it took me ~ 30 minutes to explain the Pentagon attack.


Skilled pilots willing to commit suicide grow at every corner in the US. Not.
The approach exactly into the construction site was quite difficult I think.
Hard to have an auto pilot perform the action, in opposite to the WTC.

The aircraft left the planned flight path for some reason slightly to the north.
Still good enough to fly over the designated impact zone.
If you want to survive, you can't fly that low, you want to make it over the top of the roof.
But you have to proof you did fly low. Cut the light poles to do so.

England stated "it happend not on the bridge" several times iirc.
Lagrasse claimed to have seen the cab east of the bridge on the road. It was someones proof to doubt him and his claim of the NoC.
Now let England drive on the bridge. To enhance the impression of an airborne light pole hit by a plane, push one into the cab.
If someone states the cab to have been on the road approaching the bridge, it would support an airborne light pole hit the car while driving to the bridge.

A large amount of explosives was detonated as the aircraft passed by - just right after the liner crossed the border of the roof to be safe.
The aircraft then flew away over the Pentagon, where it was allegedly sighted by at least one individual. Confuse the witnesses with a second airplane around.

The explosion or whatever demolition carried out at the Pentagon left a hole far too small to have been caused by AA 77.
Easily to be observed. I would have positioned a truck or two loaded with some explosives at the impact zone to damage the veneer.
The inside of the Pentagon is fully under my control.

A readable flight data recorder (FDR) was planted (along with an insufficient amount of aircraft debris) that allegedly conflicts with both Their false story and the track of the actual aircraft.
It was fully under control of the evil ones. It had to read the light pole approach. Bad luck the liner took the NoC.

The aircraft in question was deliberately painted so as to not even resemble an American Airlines jetliner.
Sure. If you want to fly over the roof and some witness observes you climbing again, it would be funny to explain the just exploded silver painted version.


Just a second, the door bell rings...

[mapuc]

We all, in some way, believe a lot or, very little, or nothing, in all these conspiracy that is floating on the web.

Do I have some believe in all of these conspiracy??
No none of them. However there is one case, in which I somehow have very difficult to believe the official report.

I'm not an expert on ballistic and all that kind of things. I just have very hard to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was all alone in killing JFK. That's all. This is the only thing I believe in this conspiracy.

Markus

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Catfish

^ of course. Operation Northwoods and Mongoose, anyone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

This isn't a judicial decision. You can't claim a massive secret plot just because there is forty year old precedence. You need evidence as opposed to supposition.

[Mittelwaechter]

A better version of my comment above.



Did an airliner hit the Pentagon? No!
The airliner flew over the roof of the Pentagon.

If you haven't seen the CIT videoclip - do it now to understand the following explanation of the Pentagon Attack.
(http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/ - National Security Alert, videoclip or at YT)

And visit http://arabesque911.blogspot.de/ - to experience the distraction, the mix of truth and lies, the discreditation of witnesses,
the overwhelming evidence to keep the real story covered.

Be critical and learn how the public is manipulated.


The 9/11 attack on the Pentagon - what happened and why.
(My answer to Ryan Mackey over at JREF forums)


Skilled pilots willing to commit suicide do not grow at every corner.
The approach exactly into the construction site at the Pentagon was quite difficult.
No way for an auto- or remote-pilot to perform the task, in opposite to the WTC.

The plane didn't hit the Pentagon, because it was not remote contolled or auto pilotet, but flown directly by some skilled pilot.

The aircraft left the planned flight path along the Navy Annex for some reason slightly to the north.
Still good enough to fly over the designated impact zone, but now passing CITGO at the north side.

The pilot wanted to survive, he couldn't fly too low, or he wouldn't made it over the top of the roof. Mr Turcios from CITGO correctly claims the jet was pivoting up.
But they had to proof he did fly low into the Pentagon.
So they cut the light poles to have hard evidence against all witnesses observing and claiming the jet to fly over the roof.
All experts would state it to be impossible, to hit the light poles and make it over the roof.

Mr England - the cab driver - stated "that's not where I was" several times, insisting on not standing on the bridge (when the explosion occurred).
(CIT - National Security Alert, videoclip ~1.04.00)
He seems to be part of the plot, but easily to be discredited.

Mr Lagrasse, Pentagon Police Officer, observing at CITGO - claimed to have seen the cab east of the bridge on the road. It was one of Arabesque's proof to doubt him and his claim of the northern flight path. Everybody 'knew' the cab was on the bridge.
(http://arabesque911.blogspot.de/2009...-were-not.html)

The cab was there, waiting for the impact event. They wanted to imitate the cab was hit by a light pole, wich was kicked into the air by an airliner flying low. It is the strong evidence the airliner 'really' hit the light posts in the approach, as one of them obviously got kicked through the air. Any witnesses for an other flight path would have to face this. And it covers any problems with accidental witnesses of the cutting job. An already cut light pole could not have been kicked into the air by the approaching airliner.

But the actual airliner didn't follow the planned flight path and the prepared side plot "flying pole into cab" could have been a problem so close to the real flight path. Improvising, they ordered the cab and the "flying" light pole on the bridge and kept the side plot strictly along the southern CITGO route. They simply smashed the cab's windscreen, the hood stayed undamaged. This would explain Mr England's confusing statements.

A large amount of explosives was detonated as the aircraft passed by. Correct. Just right after the plane crossed the border of the roof to be safe.
The aircraft then flew away over the Pentagon, where it was allegedly sighted by at least one individual.
Confuse the witnesses with a second airplane around (the military prop plane) and they would have to claim three airplanes were actually at the Pentagon.
Two flying around and one crashed into the Pentagon. It would disqualify them to be reliable witnesses.

The explosion carried out at the Pentagon left a hole far too small to have been caused by AA 77.
This is easily to be observed, but people refuse to accept the obvious in this drama. The authorities claim the airliner fits into the damage. Period.
Some willing supporters provide graphics and animation to "explain" it. Hidden in plain sight.

One or two trucks loaded with some explosives (and maybe some airplane debris) parked at the impact zone to damage the veneer, causing the fireball and the small debris outside.
The inside of the Pentagon was fully under contol. Additional debris was available to be carried outside.
All Pentagon workers and the fire fighters had to leave the scene, due to a possible second incoming airliner. Time to fix what's necessary.

The hole outside fits to the hole at the inner ring - in direction of the planned flight path.
Two directly attached round explosives in the size of the fuselage and the nozzle, ignited well timed with the fireball cut the holes into the walls.
There was a problem with the resistance of the structure or the ignition of additional explosives. The outer wall was still standing and the engines and wings impact did not show on the veneer.
After 45 minutes the structure collapsed and buried all embarrassing evidence of missing damage.

All inside walls were prepared to fit the demand. It was a construction site. The documented furniture and undamaged computerscreen fit perfectly into the lack of an exploding airliner.
All internal damage was a matter of desire, all fire and smoke was orchestrated.

A readable flight data recorder (FDR) was planted, that allegedly conflicts with both the false story and the track of the actual aircraft.
It was fully under control of the persons resposible. It had to mirror the light pole approach south of CITGO and the prepared hole configuration.
Bad luck the airliner took the northern CITGO route, but it was compensated by authority and order.

The aircraft in question was deliberately painted so as to not even resemble an American Airlines jetliner.
Sure. If you want to fly over the roof and some witness observes you climbing again, it would be hard to explain the just exploded silver painted version.

It's all about plausible 'evidence' and discreditation of unwanted witnesses.

Briefed 'witnesses' support the plot. Real witnesses claiming the truth have to face "the evidence" and are discredited if necessary or ordered to keep silence.
Many witnesses "believe" they have seen the official process and support it. The brain tricks us sometimes, but we are not aware of it.
Some are simply self-exposers, happy to get some air-time. And there are briefed witnesses to confuse the public, to distract and to cover the unpredicted.


"We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."
http://arabesque911.blogspot.de/2007...we-act-we.html

[Dowly]

You just went full troofer, never go full troofer...

That's all I have to say to that nonsense. Sorry.

PS. Arabesque actually doesn't support CIT's fly-over theory, quite the opposite.

[AVGWarhawk]

My office assisted in the clean up efforts. A plane certainly hit the Pentagon.