Comment: Here comes your backpedaling and smokescreens

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: "The witnesses are adamant (see in situ)

Here comes your backpedaling and smokescreens

YOU IN THE OP: "[National Security Alert] attempts to build a case that a plane did not hit the Pentagon from eyewitness testimonies that SAW THE PLANE hit the Pentagon"

ME (QUOTING CIT SITE): "...while they each had an excellent view of the plane as it passed by them at treetop level, many of the witnesses in question did not have a clear view of the impact point, or in some cases any view of the Pentagon at all, and/or they admit to running, flinching, or ducking for cover. This is explained and documented very clearly in National Security Alert. For example, 'No one was really trying to look see if it actually was gonna hit the building or not hit the building. So everyone was running in the opposite direction for their lives' --Darius Prather, ANC maintence worker."

YOU NOW: "True, some eyewitnesses only saw the plane and not the impact, never said that wasn't the case"

* * * *

ME: "National Security Alert contains proof beyond a reasonable doubt that: 1) There was a large plane on the scene. 2) This plane approached on a "north of Citgo" flight path which makes it impossible for it to have struck the five light poles or caused the directional damage to the building itself. ... You are setting up a FALSE DILEMMA -- either AA77 impacted or "something else" impacted -- which assumes that SOMETHING impacted, when in reality as you well know there is only evidence for ONE flying object on the scene, a large plane, which did NOT hit. NOTHING "hit". So you misrepresent and handwave the overwhelming evidence for what really happened (flyover timed with internal explosion) and demand evidence for what didn't happen (missile impact). Nice try."

YOU (in your response): "There is not a single eyewitness in that video that saw anything other than a plane hit the Pentagon ... I am still waiting for anyone to produce a single eyewitness that saw something other than a plane hit the Pentagon."

* * * *

YOU: "Roosevelt Roberts did not say he saw the plane 'fly away', he said he 'thinks' he saw "a second plane fly away'. Check your facts. "

Misleading phrasing. Yes, he assumed that the large commercial aircraft that he saw flying away at less than 100 feet altitude just seconds after the explosion (alleged impact) must have been a "second plane", but there was no second plane in the area at the time, even according to the official story and radar data, let alone one fitting that description. The plane he saw could only have been THE plane -- the ONLY plane -- the same one seen by the witnesses on the west side of the building, which is alleged to have crashed. It did not. It continued on. It was a black op deception. All of this is very clear when one watches National Security Alert. Now that Roberts understands the implications of what he saw, he won't talk about 9/11 anymore. "Some people were yelling that a bomb hit the Pentagon and that a jet kept on going." --Erik Dihle, describing what he overheard when he ran out of his office across from the Pentagon immediately after the explosion.

YOU: As for the personal attacks, I addressed them in the post, I know you're frustrated at your inability to provide any real evidence.

Pointing out your well-documented behavior is not a personal attack. You DO "show up in every 9/11 thread purposely trying to confuse people on the issue", and as I said "here you are yet again in a thread of your own." The evidence presented in National Security Alert is not only "real" evidence -- it is conclusive: The plane seen by all of the eyewitnesses did not hit the Pentagon and 9/11 was a false flag operation.