CIT/Air America Debate Challenge

[pomeroo]

Weick's first argument is an adhom. How jrefian of him.

Weick is an embarassment.

lol


My point was that Griffin was lying. We do not have an honest disagreement. Griffin is someone who peddles falsehoods that have been debunked repeatedly.

[theauthor]

Even debunkers admit that the hole was only 16ft across. They then go on to say that the wings folded back and entered that hole with the fuselage. why would anyone pretend that the hole was 90ft. FGS the section that collapsed was only 75 feet across..

[beachnut]

Very good work.

[A W Smith]

Hey Ron. You got more air time than rob or Craig combined. And the host doesn't even play by his own rules. Did you notice how the host needed to excessive his poisoning the well logical fallacy even as the program closed?

[Bobert]

Man I think I will smoke a good cigar to celebrate this one
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=113809
BTW......
Do truthers NOT PAY their taxes?
Geez every other commercial was tax help.

[JamesB]

Even debunkers admit that the hole was only 16ft across. They then go on to say that the wings folded back and entered that hole with the fuselage. why would anyone pretend that the hole was 90ft. FGS the section that collapsed was only 75 feet across..

Not true.

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

Most of the serious structural damage was within a swath
that was approximately 75 to 80 ft wide and extended approximately
230 ft into the first floor of the building.This swath was
oriented at approximately 35 to 40 degrees to the perpendicular
to the exterior wall of the Pentagon.Within the swath of
serious damage was a narrower, tapering area that contained
most of the very severe structural damage. This tapering area
approximated a triangle in plan and had a width of approximately
90 ft at the aircraft’s entry point and a length of approximately
230 ft along the trajectory of the aircraft through the building.

[pomeroo]

Even debunkers admit that the hole was only 16ft across. They then go on to say that the wings folded back and entered that hole with the fuselage. why would anyone pretend that the hole was 90ft. FGS the section that collapsed was only 75 feet across..


Nobody "admits" that the hole was 16 feet across because it was 90 feet.

(From The Pentagon Building Report)

"The width of the severe damage to the west facade of the Pentagon was approximately 120 ft (from column lines 8 to 20). The projected width, perpendicular to the path of the aircraft, was approximately 90 ft, which is substantially less than the 125 ft wingspan of the aircraft..."

[1337m4n]

Man I think I will smoke a good cigar to celebrate this one
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=113809
BTW......
Do truthers NOT PAY their taxes?
Geez every other commercial was tax help.

http://www.rm-r.net/~bri/sa/sa.snappyanswers.com/pics/banhammer.jpg

[pomeroo]

Well, I tried!

[beachnut]

Even debunkers admit that the hole was only 16ft across. They then go on to say that the wings folded back and entered that hole with the fuselage. why would anyone pretend that the hole was 90ft. FGS the section that collapsed was only 75 feet across..
The wings hit the Pentagon head on, at over 470 KIAS. Where do you make up this stuff? The impact marks are on the Pentagon.

[A W Smith]

Man I think I will smoke a good cigar to celebrate this one
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=113809
BTW......
Do truthers NOT PAY their taxes?
Geez every other commercial was tax help.

Again?? Dom sure likes a lot of vacations. He had a short temper tonight. Almost as if his IP address traced back to California instead of Pittsburg PA.

[boloboffin]

Excuse me, please. Could someone tell me the name of CIT's flyover witness? I missed it in the thread.

[16.5]

Almost seven years after 911.

Several weeks after CIT dropped their flyover claim.

A month or so after they admitted their errors on the flight path.

Now they found a flyover witness?

And he was in the South Parking Lot?

facepalm

[WildCat]

Did I miss it?

I wanna see a transcript! Or a recording! Or something!
Link to streaming audio here: http://airamerica.com/clout/

[R.Mackey]

Hey guys... I just got back from travel, and it looks like I landed in a war zone!

I don't suppose the "Citizens' Investigation Team" ever bothered to respond to their erroneous 11.2 G press release? The one that I corrected two months ago, Mr. Balsamo claimed I was lying about, and then promised to reply?

Also, am I wrong about this, or would a south parking lot flyover require the aircraft to have literally turned on a dime over the Pentagon while they were busy blowing it up, not to mention the fact that there were numerous others in the same parking lot who didn't see any such thing..? Never mind, that's too stupid to require a response. Carry on.

[boloboffin]

Guys, please, I'm begging you. What's the name of the flyover witness?

Is it by any chance Stephenson?

[beachnut]

I don't suppose the "Citizens' Investigation Team" ever bothered to respond to their erroneous 11.2 G press release? The one that I corrected two months ago, Mr. Balsamo claimed I was lying about, and then promised to reply?
.
No joy on the 11.2 G special math; you can't even get them to say anything. But then again, they are selling this junk 15 bucks a DVD.

Ron plugged your paper by name.

[Bobert]

Hey guys... I just got back from travel, and it looks like I landed in a war zone!

I don't suppose the "Citizens' Investigation Team" ever bothered to respond to their erroneous 11.2 G press release? The one that I corrected two months ago, Mr. Balsamo claimed I was lying about, and then promised to reply?

Also, am I wrong about this, or would a south parking lot flyover require the aircraft to have literally turned on a dime over the Pentagon while they were busy blowing it up, not to mention the fact that there were numerous others in the same parking lot who didn't see any such thing..? Never mind, that's too stupid to require a response. Carry on.

The CIT really didnt get much time.
There was a lot of tax commercials though FWIW.
DRG amd Barb seemed to get the most time and Ron got a lot too I think.

[T.A.M.]

Even debunkers admit that the hole was only 16ft across. They then go on to say that the wings folded back and entered that hole with the fuselage. why would anyone pretend that the hole was 90ft. FGS the section that collapsed was only 75 feet across..

Please show me a posting by a "debunker" that admits that the hole made by AA77 was 16 feet across? (oh, and a post stating that the portion of the hole on the second floor is 16 feet across doesn't count...it must admit that the entire hole is 16 feet across).

I'll go run around the world a dozen times while I am waiting.

TAM:)

[Jonnyclueless]

Well, I tried!


That show and its host are a complete crock. What a waste of time, but good job for trying.

[Bobert]

Guys, please, I'm begging you. What's the name of the flyover witness?

Is it by any chance Stephenson?

They didnt release his name. Who is Stephenson?

[boloboffin]

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/DidntSeeFlyover.png

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=48659&t=141696

[R.Mackey]

LOL pooor widdle Aldo
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=72578&t=277689

That is amazing. First they complain that we're all too cowardly, despite refusing to answer even on forums they regularly post on, instead finding the safe haven of a friendly radio programme and only issuing what, 48 hours notice? Then, when someone actually shows up, they bitch about being "drowned out?"

Seems to me somebody is a wee bit too sensitive for this gig.

Well, I tried!

Nice job, Ron. I doubt I would have called in myself, but after reading both arguments pro and con, I guess I don't see the harm. Generally one will be wasting one's time given the uneven playing field, but these kinds of radio shows are, after all, just entertainment. I see no problem with talking.

If these nuts try pushing pseudoscience in a real conference or journal or even newspaper (excluding the typical errant "letter to the editor," of course), on the other hand -- communications that actually have integrity instead of the open airwaves -- that's different. Those demand the A-game from all of us. Not that they'll ever step up, mind you.

No joy on the 11.2 G special math; you can't even get them to say anything. But then again, they are selling this junk 15 bucks a DVD.

Ron plugged your paper by name.

Pity, that would have been amusing.

Regarding my whitepaper, that reminds me that I have a revision to finish. I owe Craig Furlong those corrections. Hope to have it done by Sunday night.

[T.A.M.]

yes another "scoop of the century" that they will claim to "bring to authorities", then when it appears nowhere but their little sites, they will claim "The Man is suppressing the evidence".

Give me a break. Haven't the "mainstream" truthers shut these twirps up yet? they are almost as bad as the "No Planers".

TAM:)

[A W Smith]

the archived audio link to the 7th segment is broken
http://airamerica.com/clout/blog/2008/may/15/clout-month-truth-week-3

[boloboffin]

Oh, no. Stephenson is an ATC and he saw the plane hit the Pentagon from Reagan. Their guy is in the south parking lot, right?

Ah, well. That would have been rich.

[WildCat]

Also, am I wrong about this, or would a south parking lot flyover require the aircraft to have literally turned on a dime over the Pentagon while they were busy blowing it up, not to mention the fact that there were numerous others in the same parking lot who didn't see any such thing..? Never mind, that's too stupid to require a response. Carry on.
Yes, they are actually now claiming that the plane did a hairpin turn entirely over the Pentagon.

Just when you thought it couldn't get any more stupid!

[A W Smith]

Yes, they are actually now claiming that the plane did a hairpin turn entirely over the Pentagon.

Just when you thought it couldn't get any more stupid!

I swear I heard him say TWO planes. TWICE at the very end of the phone call.

[Brainache]

Yes, they are actually now claiming that the plane did a hairpin turn entirely over the Pentagon.

Just when you thought it couldn't get any more stupid!

So are they saying it deployed grappling hooks? Or what?

[Bobert]

I swear I heard him say TWO planes. TWICE at the very end of the phone call.

Yes I heard that as well and thought it strange.
Maybe he read the script Craig gave him wrong.

[Jonnyclueless]

I'm confused by the CIT claim. It seems like their new witness saw TWO planes while the rest of their witnesses only saw one.

[A W Smith]

I'm confused by the CIT claim. It seems like their new witness saw TWO planes while the rest of their witnesses only saw one.

When they try to pin him down if it was a 'jet'
In one sentence he says 'a large commercial airliner fifty feet away from me". , then a bit after that he says TWO planes. with emphasis. then again. TWO planes.

[Jwheelz]

You might like to explain why the report differs from the 16ft hole we see in all the photos, videos and witness testimonies.

Even the majority of your fellow twoofers would beg to differ.

Not sure exactly what part of which photo(s) you are looking at but, you might want to try this one out -- can't post links yet so I will exclude the http ---

911review.com/articles/stjarna/eximpactdamage_files/hole11.jpg

They actually included an honest review of the impact damage over at 911 Review. I am surprised because it is tough to find twoofers being honest about much. You for instance are holding on to an obviously false statement in order to encourage discussion where you will immediately change the subject once your original claim is shot down - and then mysteriously forget that you were ever proved wrong and continue right on pushing your falsehoods.

Just in case you are interested, I will post the partial link for that entire article. 911review.com/articles/stjarna/eximpactdamage.html

[celestrin]

So, I wake up this morning, the ground is not shattered, the Earth is still spinning and the things still don't look good for Generalissimo. At least TC only got suspended, so perhaps he'll be able to answer questions next time he comes back.

Levi Stephens was a courier for the Armed Forces Information Service at the time, driving away from the Pentagon. I don't think he can be their flyover witness.
http://www.stripes.com/01/sep01/ed091201i.html

Does the show eventually provide transcripts?

ETA: nothing really to edit, just a note that Stephenson=/=Stephens and that I should probably wake up first and then go posting on online forums...

[Bobert]

Craig made the mistake of playing that on the show because now he cant go back and edit out that last statement about 2 planes.
Green tried to stop him and if only he listened he wouldnt be in the pickle he is about to be in.
Craig is AGAIN stuck and I think this time the Truthers are going to jump ship even more then they have been.

[realitybites]

I'm confused by the CIT claim.

Don't worry. So are they.

Fear not though.... I'm sure they'll sort through all their NEW earth-shattering testimony to make another DVD that'll be out in time for Christmas.

[CHF]

Hilarious!

This was going to be CIT's big coming out party and instead they get "drowned out."

I'm surprised the TM isn't up in arms over these morons being allowed to embarrass themselves publicly like that, what with them being "disinfo" and all....

[Arus808]

why would someone in the South parking lot see a plane fly over, if they are going to follow the direction of gtravel of the plane? the South Parking lot isn't even on the direct path of any paht of travel for any plane

[A W Smith]

it was not on the show but they are going with the girl in the Arlington band as their second "new" flyover witness on their air America thread over at LC. The girl who had the impression that the plane hit on the far side but admits her view was blocked by trees. These are the trees Keith Wheelhouse, who does not support their version cant see through. But amazingly. The female band member CAN see through these trees.

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/flightpathnotvisable.jpg

[gumboot]

Weird.

[theauthor]

Please show me a posting by a "debunker" that admits that the hole made by AA77 was 16 feet across? (oh, and a post stating that the portion of the hole on the second floor is 16 feet across doesn't count...it must admit that the entire hole is 16 feet across).

I'll go run around the world a dozen times while I am waiting.

TAM:)


Here

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

How far round the world did you get?

[chillzero]

Here

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

How far round the world did you get?

Can you point out the admission, please?

I read the document, and he clearly says "it's been reported... to be". Then he goes into some analysis of this description. He does not 'admit' that the hole made by AA77 was 16 feet across, which was what you were asked.

Here is the hole in the building - it's been reported by at least a dozen different sources (including conspiracy theory sites) to be a 16 to 20 foot hole. That is really interesting when you take into account the fact that the 757 body is 12 ft 4in wide and 13 ft 6in high. (Here is where I was mistaken in the past, like so very many others I was led astray by the HEIGHT of the aircraft, which is actually the measurement from the wheels (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1#)-down to the tip of the tail. That measurement is for aircraft hangar clearance, not the SIZE of the aircraft.) The 757 is basically a cylinder that is 13 feet across. It then should not be surprising that it would create something around a thirteen foot hole in the side of the building.

The next paragraph moves on to discuss the height of the plane, not the width.

Look at the nose-on view of a 757 - you can see the body is slightly less than 1/3 the size of the height of the aircraft. The tail certainly isn't going to punch a hole through a reinforced concrete wall; that is why there is no 40 foot hole in the front of the Pentagon in any photos. A 40 foot object didn't hit it, a 13 foot object did.


In the conclusion he refers again to the hole, and the way I read it in that statement he is again referring to the plane size and what size of hole it would be expected to create when it doesn't hit straight on at 90 degrees to the wall face.


Size of 757 matches the initial size of hole in the building - somewhere between 13 and 16 feet (757 is 13 feet wide/high)

[theauthor]

Can you point out the admission, please?

I read the document, and he clearly says "it's been reported... to be". Then he goes into some analysis of this description. He does not 'admit' that the hole made by AA77 was 16 feet across, which was what you were asked.



The next paragraph moves on to discuss the height of the plane, not the width.

[B]

In the conclusion he refers again to the hole, and the way I read it in that statement he is again referring to the plane size and what size of hole it would be expected to create when it doesn't hit straight on at 90 degrees to the wall face.


Nice spin, but it doesn't wash.

He says it is reported as a 16 - 20 foot hole. Then says that is what you would expect from a 13ft fuselage. He goes on to say that the fuselage punched the hole.

[chillzero]

He says it is reported as a 16 - 20 foot hole. Then says that is what you would expect from a 13ft fuselage. He goes on to say that the fuselage punched the hole.

Yeah ... I just pointed that out to you. He doesn't admit it was a 16 foot hole.

[theauthor]

Yeah ... I just pointed that out to you. He doesn't admit it was a 16 foot hole.

Yes he does. He states that a hole that size was reported. He then says that that would be what you would expect from a 13 ft fuselage. Then he categorically states that the 13 ft fuselage punched that hole. You can play semantics all day but you and I both know I provided exactly what TAM asked for.

[theauthor]

Heres a similar example:

The Pentagon, by contrast, has an exterior wall made of three feet of high-compression concrete reinforced with steel. It was designed to withstand missile strikes, yet, it still bore a distinct hole where the fuselage penetrated clear through the first ring of the building. The wings apparently folded up along side the fuselage, or disintegrated, as the plane went through. That's not at all implausible, considering the strength of the Pentagon's walls.

This guy doesn't mention the whole size specifically but it is obvious what he means.

http://www.takingflight.us/forums/archive/index.php/t-900.html

[chillzero]

Yes he does. He states that a hole that size was reported. He then says that that would be what you would expect from a 13 ft fuselage. Then he categorically states that the 13 ft fuselage punched that hole. You can play semantics all day but you and I both know I provided exactly what TAM asked for.

He states what size the hole was reported. Then he works on that report to examine possibilities.

Where does he undertake any measurement of the hole himself, and admit (which is what TAM asked for) that he measured it at 16 feet?

[chillzero]

This guy doesn't mention the whole size specifically but it is obvious what he means.

So, by not mentioning the size, he is admitting to the size?
:rolleyes:

[Caustic Logic]

Well, I tried!

Unless I'm confused... you did well. I listened to the 7-part stream, all but the last part I was listening for but ain't working. He sure squished you in there between a whole clown brigade... debunkers TBA - Tiny Blocks Allowed. It was a very interestingly boring show, what I heard.

[theauthor]

He states what size the hole was reported. Then he works on that report to examine possibilities.

Where does he undertake any measurement of the hole himself, and admit (which is what TAM asked for) that he measured it at 16 feet?

Who mentions measured? Moving goalposts much?

He says the hole was reported at 16 - 20 feet then agrees with that assessment by saying it is what you would expect and the fuselage punched the hole.

[Caustic Logic]

Yes he does. He states that a hole that size was reported. He then says that that would be what you would expect from a 13 ft fuselage. Then he categorically states that the 13 ft fuselage punched that hole. You can play semantics all day but you and I both know I provided exactly what TAM asked for.

Sorry I missed the sub-debate, but they're right. The hole was 90 feet-plus, walls, columns removed the whole way. Panels gone but columns left for an even wider area. Have you even seen the ground floor? Many people got confused and mean the smaller portion of damage on the second floor. A LOT of people pretend that's THE damage, for some reason...
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2007/01/obscured-by-foam.html
Even Craig and CIT know not to argue 16-foot hole, as Greene knows and calls him in between eick and Neson, capt. of the Pod People.

And man, how about that Barbara. April just pushed a simple button and the COMPUTER SCREENS blew up! That's new! The screens blew a 90-foot wide hole in the building's outer wall while bending 50+ columns inwards, scattering heavy plane debris and bodies along a path towards and into the A-E Drive... and all from inside computer monitors, rather than the masonry like CIT says...

best quote: The stupid! It hurts!

[chillzero]

Who mentions measured? Moving goalposts much?

For something to be considered an admission, I would expect to see something other than responding to other people's reports. He wasn't discussing whether the hole was or was not 16 feet. He was discussing whether or not it would be possible for the plane to have made a 16 foot hole. There's a difference.

[Dave Rogers]

He says it is reported as a 16 - 20 foot hole. Then says that is what you would expect from a 13ft fuselage. He goes on to say that the fuselage punched the hole.

Much though I appreciate that you may have a burning need for trivial pwnage, this entire discussion centres on whether one specific person made one specific claim as to the size of one specific hole in the Pentagon. This has little or no bearing on the fact, frequently disputed but clearly obvious to anyone who actually views the evidence critically, that the damage to the facade of the Pentagon extended over exactly the area that would be expected from the impact of a Boeing 757 at the angle that flight 77 struck the building. The fact that a 90 foot section of the building collapsed is itself completely inconsistent with the neat 16-20 foot single circular hole that exists only in the fantasies of the truth movement. So what exactly is the point of obsessing over the fact that one debunker's account could be carefully misinterpreted to suggest that this one specific individual may have been mistaken over the extent of the damage?

Dave

[theauthor]

Heres another debunker who admits it was 16 feet, he even says its a fact:

How do you explain the following facts?

# Size of 757 matches the initial size of hole in the building - somewhere between 13 and 16 feet (757 is 13 feet wide/high)
# Rims found in building match those of a 757
# Small turbine engine outside is an APU
# Same engine has been clearly stated to not match a Global Hawk engine
# Blue seats from 757 laying on ground in photos
# Part of "American" fuselage logo visible in more than 1 photo
# Engine parts photographed inside match a Rolls-Royce RB211
# Structural components photographed in wreckage match Boeing paint primer schemes
# Large deisel generator in front of building hit by a large heavy object
# Large deisel engine outside is spun towards the building - could not be result of bomb blast or missile explosion
# Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner
# Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner hit the Pentagon
# 60+ bodies, matching the passenger list and flight crew roster identified and returned to families from Pentagon wreckage

A 757 Hit the Pentagon

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=38269&t=99740

[chillzero]

Heres another debunker who admits it was 16 feet, he even says its a fact:



http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=38269&t=99740

lol - that's a CTist quoting the same guy we are discussing... and he's still referring to the reported size of the hole. The facts he outlines are detailed in the rest of the paper; the actual dimensions of the plane, etc. Use the original link, not some CTists cherry pick of it.

[theauthor]

lol - that's a CTist quoting the same guy we are discussing... and he's still referring to the reported size of the hole. The facts he outlines are detailed in the rest of the paper; the actual dimensions of the plane, etc. Use the original link, not some CTists cherry pick of it.


No its a debunker. He describes all the points as facts then goes on to argue the case for a plane hitting the pentagon.

[theauthor]

I have provided exactly what TAM asked for. A debunker states categorically as a fact that the hole was 13 - 16 feet.:)

[chillzero]

No its a debunker. He describes all the points as facts then goes on to argue the case for a plane hitting the pentagon.

OK. I have to take your word for it that he's a debunker, because I only have access to that one individual post, where he makes no further argument at all.

Nonetheless, he has plagiarised that exact list from your original link, which I already discussed.
If there is any point further in that thread where he reviews the hole itself to draw a conclusion about its size (not the plane's), then that's more what TAM asked for.

[chillzero]

I have provided exactly what TAM asked for. A debunker states categorically as a fact that the hole was 13 - 16 feet.:)

I doubt TAM will accept that, because all you have shown is someone discussing whether a plane can make a hole 13 - 16 feet wide / high. There's no examination of the hole to determine what size he thinks it is.

[theauthor]

No, TAM asked for a debunker who admits the hole is 16 feet. Nobody can measure the size because the hole doesn't exist anymore. I provided what TAM asked for.

[theauthor]

I doubt TAM will accept that, because all you have shown is someone discussing whether a plane can make a hole 13 - 16 feet wide / high. There's no examination of the hole to determine what size he thinks it is.


No, he states as a FACT that the hole was 13 - 16 feet. He doesn't discuss possibilities. He starts his post with "how do you explain the following facts?"

[T.A.M.]

Here

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

How far round the world did you get?

He is right, that section of the hole is 16 feet. However, the majority of the hole, ONE FLOOR BELOW (In the photo in the link it is covered in hose spray, smoke etc...) is 70-90 feet across.

I got once around the world.

TAM;)

Edit: The person in question is dealing with the top section of the hole only. You know this. You also know there are photos that show the bottom section hole to be at least 4-5 times wider than the 16 feet approximately for the top section of the hole, which is what the debunker in questsion was focused on (as shown through the box he inserted to point out the hole he was talking about).

[Caustic Logic]

I have provided exactly what TAM asked for. A debunker states categorically as a fact that the hole was 13 - 16 feet.:)
NEAT-O!

Yes, Cat Herder is a debunker more or less - he e-mailed me recently, until then I wasn't clear on that. And he does use that bogus evidence in an otherwise good piece - i've called him on it, it's part of what made his thread so commented-on. 98,000 repetitions of "then where did the wings and engines go?' Theauthor is correct here. Can we move on?

Anyone score a recording of the last portion? as Rob ever on?

[theauthor]

He is right, that section of the hole is 16 feet. However, the majority of the hole, ONE FLOOR BELOW (In the photo in the link it is covered in hose spray, smoke etc...) is 70-90 feet across.

I got once around the world.

TAM;)


That section of the hole? I think a hole, by definition, is a continuum. Are you saying there were several holes?

I did provide what you asked for didn't I?

[Drudgewire]

How many showers does it take to wash Air America off of me? http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/sweatdrop.gif

I think I need some steel wool.

[T.A.M.]

That section of the hole? I think a hole, by definition, is a continuum. Are you saying there were several holes?

I did provide what you asked for didn't I?

Well yes, I think you provided a debunker who called "A hole in the pentagon made by AA77" 16 feet...sure.

It is my fault really, I was not specific enough in what I wanted...but that is ok...you can do a high five, call me PWNed...:)

I kind of meant a debunker here on JREF, but I didn't say that. It is funny that some people even on the right side (the debunker side) are still arguing that falsehood.

Clearly, there are photos that show the entire hole (yes there are sections to the hole, as a section of the hole in that picture is covered by smoke and hose spray) to be about 70-90 feet at the bottom, extending up to about 8 feet high, and then that 16-20 foot area of the hole, on the SECOND FLOOR.

Are you purposely being obtuse on this, or what?

TAM:)

[eeyore1954]

Did any one call in and mention how ridiculous it is to believe the broken light poles were planted on the busy highway.

[bje]

Did any one call in and mention how ridiculous it is to believe the broken light poles were planted on the busy highway.

Details... details....

[Drudgewire]

its going to be quite a big night for the 9/11 truth movement and definitely a low point for you bush administration supporters. most definitely.


Well, it's the morning after. Guess we better prepare to eat crow guys...


CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/)

NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/)

ABCNews.com (http://www.abcnews.com)

Drudge Report (http://www.drudgereport.com/)



http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/cricket.gif http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/cricket.gif http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/cricket.gif

[16.5]

So their new witnesses are:

1. Someone who was inside the Pentagon’s South Parking Lot Loading Dock, believes a plane hit the Pentagon, and believes that there were two planes. Let us assume everything he says he believes is true. His story directly contradicts the rest of the CIT’s NOC crowd (because none of them mention two planes, and certainly not one that passed over the SOUTH PARKING LOT LOADING RAMP!), with the notable exception that he agrees that a plane hit the Pentagon.

2. Our Army band member, who was in Arlington. She looked up expecting to see a ceremonial fly by over the Cemetery overhead and instead saw the plane heading toward the Pentagon. Lyte is clearly and intentionally misrepresenting her testimony:

“I hear what I think is a fly over, over my head because that's standard.

[LYTE removes some testimony here...]

And I looked, I looked directly up for it, and I also had some tree cover so i wasn't able to see, but I was facing the Pentagon and I saw something really fast going to the Pentagon with the swoosh.”

She look s up expecting a typical flyover THE CEMETERY, does not see one, instead sees the plane heading toward the Pentagon.

Again, CIT, a question: assume that see did see a plane directly over head, please plot your flight paths (yes, plural, guys) Make sure you include Morin’s testimony you were so proud of a few weeks ago, and make sure that your witnesses at the Citgo could not see the “second plane.”

/These guys are grossly incompetent. They have cherry picked themselves into a story that has perhaps surpassed the No Planers in idiocy.

[Bobert]

Did any one call in and mention how ridiculous it is to believe the broken light poles were planted on the busy highway.

The show was very rushed IMHO due to having to make room for all of the commercials about tax law.
Add to that the fact the he had so many guests so that issue was not addressed.
Green did make a comment about how he may do this again so maybe CIT can have a slot of their own.
It would be nice to also hear people call in and see how many supporters they get.
I have a feeling though that Aldo will ruin any chance they have at getting on again.

[Drudgewire]

We really should be harping more on the fearless DRG's brave method of spouting his nonsense then saying "oh I have to go" before Ron got to respond in what was supposed to be a debate.

What a douche.

[Bobert]

Yes that was classic. He was asked what happened to the passengers of flight 77 then says "oh gotta go" but then has time to change the subject and also pimp his book for the 100th time.

[A W Smith]

Who mentions measured? Moving goalposts much?

He says the hole was reported at 16 - 20 feet then agrees with that assessment by saying it is what you would expect and the fuselage punched the hole.


As an author. You are not very good at reading are you? lemme guess. childrens books?

Originally Posted by T.A.M. http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3707225#post3707225)
Please show me a posting by a "debunker" that admits that the hole made by AA77 was 16 feet across? (oh, and a post stating that the portion of the hole on the second floor is 16 feet across doesn't count...it must admit that the entire hole is 16 feet across).

I'll go run around the world a dozen times while I am waiting.

TAM:)

[Reheat]

/These guys are grossly incompetent. They have cherry picked themselves into a story that has perhaps surpassed the No Planers in idiocy.

Yep, about the time I think it can't get more stupid it surpasses my wildest expectations!

[A W Smith]

Their other south parking lot witness Levi Stephens (http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic9.htm)does not mention a flyover

his location is at "A" in this photo
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Pentagon%20folder%202/LevisPosition.jpg

"A... is about right on the mark. Notice it's a one way street that allows you to circle South parking. I was looking for a parking spot. So as the plane flew in I had to physically turn around to watch it. I stopped there when I noticed how low the plane was. The reporter sort of misquoted me I was actually driving away from the Pentagon directionally as I wasn't facing the building."

[16.5]

Their other south parking lot witness Levi Stephens does not mention a flyover

Yep, I don't think that they realize that the more witnesses they try to shoehorn into their little fantasy, the more they contradict themselves.

[jaydeehess]

:rolleyes:No, TAM asked for a debunker who admits the hole is 16 feet. Nobody can measure the size because the hole doesn't exist anymore. I provided what TAM asked for.

This is as far as I got in this odd exchange.
Forgive me if this has been addressed in the last page after author's post.

The fact of the matter is that the ground floor wall was missing for 90-100 feet which is consistent with the wings hitting it while the round hole at the second floor level is consistent with the diameter of the fuselage AND consistent with where such a hole created by the fuselage would be if a 757 hit the Pentagon with its wings just below the ceiling height of the ground floor.

Ct's who carry on about 'its only a 15-20 foot hole but the plane was 100 feet wide' are being horrendously and obviously dishonest.

[Brainster]

I see that Col. George Nelson repeated the oft-debunked canard that the plane punched through three rings of the Pentagon. Many "Truthers" still believe this to be true; Jason Bermas repeated the claim when I debated him on Rob Bishop's show.

In fact, on the first two floors of the Pentagon, rings E, D and C are all connected. This is pretty easy to see here:

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/17.jpg

Click on the photo to supersize it, and you'll see that the middle section of the building in the picture (the D ring) only has three floors of windows shown. However the left section of the building in the picture (the C ring) has four sets of windows and it is clear that there is a floor below that as well. Since the Pentagon is a five-story building on all rings, that means that there are two floors of the D ring that we cannot see because it is interconnected with the C ring.

Incidentally I was definitely feeling a twinge of regret about not appearing on the show when I found out that Griffin showed up, but to nobody's surprise he took no questions. Has this guy ever faced questions from debunkers on a radio show?

[pomeroo]

The following message is from Rob Balsamo. I haven't listened to the off-air commotion yet.

(RB wrote)
Attached is the file. 11mins runtime.

I edited out on air dicussion except for the last segment. We only got the second hour off air chats as i said i didnt think of it until second hour. Feel free to post it on your websites.

We posted it here..
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=12450&view=findpost&p=10740626 (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=12450&view=findpost&p=10740626)

[Caustic Logic]

Incidentally I was definitely feeling a twinge of regret about not appearing on the show when I found out that Griffin showed up, but to nobody's surprise he took no questions. Has this guy ever faced questions from debunkers on a radio show?

Folks have often wondered how his theological training prepares him for 9/11 research. I think we have the answer - he's learned the best debate position is from God's perspective. The author of six books and above-it-all uber-expert Griffin will not be taking your questions although he will accept your prayers at any time.

And DRG - no, dummy, citing Aldo's 'analysis' where he wrote 'dubious' or 'unverified' next to every other account does NOT defuse the eyewitness record.

[tanabear]

You might try taking a look at the Pentagon Building Report.

Where in the Pentagon Building Performance Report(PBPR) does it say that the hole in the E-ring of the Pentagon is 90 feet across?

Sorry I missed the sub-debate, but they're right. The hole was 90 feet-plus, walls, columns removed the whole way. Panels gone but columns left for an even wider area. Have you even seen the ground floor? Many people got confused and mean the smaller portion of damage on the second floor. A LOT of people pretend that's THE damage, for some reason...
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2007/01/obscured-by-foam.html
Even Craig and CIT know not to argue 16-foot hole, as Greene knows and calls him in between eick and Neson, capt. of the Pod People.



Hello Adam Larson (AKA Caustic Logic). I've read your blog on and off for quite a while now. Why the obsession with Flight 77? It seems like there are other topics that are far more interesting regarding 9/11. Blogger Arabesque devotes some of his writings to Pentagon attack, but he covers a much wider spectrum.

You write, "The hole was 90 feet-plus, walls, columns removed the whole way. Panels gone but columns left for an even wider area."

Where does it say this in the PBPR? The PBPR report states, "A second photograph (figure 3.9) taken before the collapse reveals that first-floor exterior columns on column lines 15, 16, and 17 were severely distorted but still attached at least at their top ends to the second-floor framing."

According to the report, the impact of the fuselage occurred at column line 14. So how can the hole extend 90 feet across if the column lines just to the right of where the fuselage impacted the facade are still connected?

When you say the hole was 90 feet across are you referring to an actual hole, or just the area of column damage and distortion?

[theauthor]

The following message is from Rob Balsamo. I haven't listened to the off-air commotion yet.

(RB wrote)
Attached is the file. 11mins runtime.

I edited out on air dicussion except for the last segment. We only got the second hour off air chats as i said i didnt think of it until second hour. Feel free to post it on your websites.

We posted it here..
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=12450&view=findpost&p=10740626 (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=12450&view=findpost&p=10740626)


It says you need to be a member.

[Bobert]

Tanabear,
What is the obsession you share with some of your peers where you state someones name?
BTW CL you have a PM.

[Caustic Logic]

It says you need to be a member.

And they brag their membership numbers have never been higher. :)

[Jonnyclueless]

Tanabear, maybe you should read the whole paper?

"Along the path of the movement of aircraft debris through the building,the most severe damage was confined to a region that can be represented approximately by a triangle centered on the trajectory of the aircraft in plan,with a base width at the aircraft entry point of approximately 90 ft and a length along the aircraft path of approximately 230 ft (figure 6.6). damage for 60 ft to the north of the collapse area,especially along a strip bounded approximately by column lines B and C. "

[Bobert]

Man now I can appreciate more and more why the truthers are abandoning the CIT.
First you have Aldo with his hissyfit over how it went on Clout and now Craig's paranoia is surfacing:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=72968&t=277689
For some reason the link to the segment with my presentation isn't functional.

Go figure.

The groundbreaking new evidence isn't available.

straight jacket time!
BTW Craig your "eyewitness" claims are exactly that they are CLAIMS they ARE NOT EVIDENCE. You and the rest of the CIT look FOOLISH everytime you mix it up.

[T.A.M.]

When you say the hole was 90 feet across are you referring to an actual hole, or just the area of column damage and distortion?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hole

Are you *********** serious?

the "actual" hole? I think he is referring to the section of the outside wall that was removed by the jet plane. you know, the 75-90 foot section along the bottom floor, combined with the smaller 12-16 foot section above...is it a cavern that goes in 50 feet in all areas, NO, but I think most SANE people would agree that the 75-90 foot section of damage to the bottom floor would qualify as a "hole"...an "actual" one.


Here, for your reading pleasure...

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/composite.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/index.html#precollapse
http://911review.com/articles/stjarna/eximpactdamage.html

TAM:)

[applecorped]

There are innactual holes?:confused:

[Bobert]

Wow what do you so to crapola like this
the majority of the people who got involved in this movement did so because of their interest in the pentagon. this aspect of the attack has always been the most suspicious to everyone because the notion you could attack the hq of the mightiest military in the world 90 minutes after war was declared is unbelievable.

then you see cameras were mounted directly above the alleged impact spot and the duh-bunkers claimed the pentagon didnt archive any of its security film unlike every corporation in the united states has been doing for the last 15-20 years is also a joke. the footage exists. but it'll never be release because of what it doesn't show.

[tanabear]

Tanabear,
What is the obsession you share with some of your peers where you state someones name?
BTW CL you have a PM.

He mentions his name at his own website (http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/). It isn't like it was a big secret.

Tanabear, maybe you should read the whole paper?

"Along the path of the movement of aircraft debris through the building,the most severe damage was confined to a region that can be represented approximately by a triangle centered on the trajectory of the aircraft in plan,with a base width at the aircraft entry point of approximately 90 ft and a length along the aircraft path of approximately 230 ft (figure 6.6). damage for 60 ft to the north of the collapse area,especially along a strip bounded approximately by column lines B and C. "

I have read the whole report. I asked if the estimate of 90 feet referred to an actual hole, or did it include a hole plus column damage and distortion. Is the report referring to an area of impact damage or an actual continuous hole? Regarding the triangle, he report states,

"However, within this triangular damage area there were a few relatively lightly damaged columns interspersed with heavily damaged columns along the path of the aircraft debris through the building."

Regarding the impact the report states,

"The impact upon the west facade removed first-floor columns from column lines 10 to 14. First-floor exterior columns on column lines 9, 15, 16, and 17 were severely damaged..."

It sounds like the report is referring to a hole plus an area of damaged columns, but not a continuous hole. Besides the question was for Caustic Logic. He wrote,

"The hole was 90 feet-plus, walls, columns removed the whole way. Panels gone but columns left for an even wider area."

He said the columns were removed for the whole way. However, I quoted the PBPR where it stated,

"A second photograph (figure 3.9) taken before the collapse reveals that first-floor exterior columns on column lines 15, 16, and 17 were severely distorted but still attached at least at their top ends to the second-floor framing."

How can the columns be removed the whole way and still attached? I was asking for clarification from Caustic Logic


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hole

Are you *********** serious?

the "actual" hole? I think he is referring to the section of the outside wall that was removed by the jet plane. you know, the 75-90 foot section along the bottom floor, combined with the smaller 12-16 foot section above...is it a cavern that goes in 50 feet in all areas, NO, but I think most SANE people would agree that the 75-90 foot section of damage to the bottom floor would qualify as a "hole"...an "actual" one.

TAM:)

Once again, is this "hole" continuous or does it include damaged and distorted columns as well?

[applecorped]

Quote:
the majority of the people who got involved in this movement did so because of their interest in the pentagon. this aspect of the attack has always been the most suspicious to everyone because the notion you could attack the hq of the mightiest military in the world 90 minutes after war was declared is unbelievable.

then you see cameras were mounted directly above the alleged impact spot and the duh-bunkers claimed the pentagon didnt archive any of its security film unlike every corporation in the united states has been doing for the last 15-20 years is also a joke. the footage exists. but it'll never be release because of what it doesn't show.

:jaw-dropp

[Jonnyclueless]

Quote:
the majority of the people who got involved in this movement did so because of their interest in the pentagon. this aspect of the attack has always been the most suspicious to everyone because the notion you could attack the hq of the mightiest military in the world 90 minutes after war was declared is unbelievable.

then you see cameras were mounted directly above the alleged impact spot and the duh-bunkers claimed the pentagon didnt archive any of its security film unlike every corporation in the united states has been doing for the last 15-20 years is also a joke. the footage exists. but it'll never be release because of what it doesn't show.

:jaw-dropp

So your evidence is the lack of evidence? And they pulled off this daring caper based on pot luck that no one happened to be filming the fake airplane crash, yet they can't simply fake some camera feeds and that's how you caught them? Wow, way to go Sherlock Holmes. And as if we are to believe that if they showed the footage which shows nothing, that you would actually be satisfied? LOL!!

[applecorped]

I was quoting someone else...

[applecorped]

....and not agreeing with them....

[Bobert]

Ooops that was from Dom over at LCF.

[Jonnyclueless]

I was quoting someone else...

But my response is obviously going to what is quoted is it not? Shouldn't matter either way. Consider it to LastTCdictatortweeter.

[Caustic Logic]

Where in the Pentagon Building Performance Report(PBPR) does it say that the hole in the E-ring of the Pentagon is 90 feet across?

Everywhere and nowhere. It is written upon the wall. The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.

Also pp. 28, 35, 39. Go ahead and check it. Do a word search for "90" if you have it in pdf.

Hello Adam Larson (AKA Caustic Logic). I've read your blog on and off for quite a while now. Why the obsession with Flight 77? It seems like there are other topics that are far more interesting regarding 9/11. Blogger Arabesque devotes some of his writings to Pentagon attack, but he covers a much wider spectrum.

Hello back, tan - a - bear? Am I pronouncing that right? . (to all - my true name is public and on everything I write. 'salright.) I decided the Pentagon was confused enough to warrant dissection and understanding, and simple enough I could do it. Then I kept going and getting better. The WTC is big... Here I can actually get a good grip and do more help by narrowing in. I learn useful things that no one much wants to hear and so don't. :) However in the past I've also contributed
http://they-let-it-happen.blogspot.com/
http://12-7-9-11.blogspot.com/
And building bridges, encouraging honest debate, open-mindedness on all sides, etc... for whatever that's worth [cough-bootlicker!]

But yeah, I'm kinda strapped to this one bus, wherever it's driven, waving at passersby 'hey, this thing is a sham. I can't seem to stop it, but don't get on.' They do anyway, just glare at me on the way and complain to the driver, who runs me into things when possible. Hey, you wanna take my place?

The PBPR report states, "A second photograph (figure 3.9) taken before the collapse reveals that first-floor exterior columns on column lines 15, 16, and 17 were severely distorted but still attached at least at their top ends to the second-floor framing."

According to the report, the impact of the fuselage occurred at column line 14. So how can the hole extend 90 feet across if the column lines just to the right of where the fuselage impacted the facade are still connected?

If you actually wonder about this, rather than just mentioning it for argument's sake - it's a good question. More people have tried to work around the intact columns 15-17 than the 16-foot hole. It looks a bit like columns there, if all broken and weird. Get this... this is crazy... the ASCE is wrong. Those are not columns in that spot.
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2007/07/columns-15-17-still-attached.html That is my explanation to that point.
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/Columns_15-17_Repaired.jpg

Alternately, maybe they are and somehow they just - didn't get - obliterated, like the others did. I guess that's possible.

When you say the hole was 90 feet across are you referring to an actual hole, or just the area of column damage and distortion?

You write, "The hole was 90 feet-plus, walls, columns removed the whole way. Panels gone but columns left for an even wider area."

To clarify, and do please show me wrong if you can, IF we call 'columns 15-17' gone as they should be, 9 panels wide, 90 feet, nothing left. At all. Ground floor. Big time. It's a friggin continent, the 16-footer's just a peninsula. Please read more closely.

[BenBurch]

See also; http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2007/12/pentagon-hole-revealed-by-composite.html

http://www.whiterosesociety.org/images/pent-ricostruzionedannouw0.jpg

[T.A.M.]

Once again, is this "hole" continuous or does it include damaged and distorted columns as well?

I am not a member of ASCE, nor was I there, nor did I take photos of it. What I can say, is that the "hole" likely includes the entire area that had the front wall/facade destroyed/removed from the impact, so I think that the composite photo above posted by Ben pretty much covers it...

How do you know that there are not "damaged/distorted columns" just inside the truthers infamous "12-16 foot hole" on the second floor as well?

Perhaps you should write the STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS that worked on the PENTAGON BUILDING REPORT for ASCE and FEMA, and ask them what their definition of a "hole" is, to make sure it matches your definition.

TAM:)

[eeyore1954]

So what you are arguing about here is yes there was a wide path of damage. Much greater than the 16 foot claim around 90 feet that is consistant with a plane impact but maybe it did not constitute one contiguous hole. And that somewhere in the world there is at least one "debunker " who says there was a 16 foot hole. The said debunker doesn't claim the 16 foot hole is the only damage but instead says that particular hole was consistant with the damage from the fuselage.

[uk_dave]

So what you are arguing about here is yes there was a wide path of damage.

No, they're arguing about the definition of the word "hole".

As ever with 'truthers', they see the world with distorted vision but believe everyone sees what they see. This applies equally to their ability to comprehend the written word. They latch on to the use of a particular word in an official report/speech/posting and interpret this in a way which confirms their suspicions about the official version of events.

That only they see things this way is not their fault, apparently it is ours.

[tanabear]

Everywhere and nowhere. It is written upon the wall. The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.

Also pp. 28, 35, 39. Go ahead and check it. Do a word search for "90" if you have it in pdf.

Yes, I have done that. The PBPR does not give the specific dimensions for the size of the hole in the E-ring. The report is not clear on the issue.

Hello back, tan - a - bear? Am I pronouncing that right? . (to all - my true name is public and on everything I write. 'salright.) I decided the Pentagon was confused enough to warrant dissection and understanding, and simple enough I could do it. Then I kept going and getting better. The WTC is big... Here I can actually get a good grip and do more help by narrowing in. I learn useful things that no one much wants to hear and so don't. :) However in the past I've also contributed
http://they-let-it-happen.blogspot.com/
http://12-7-9-11.blogspot.com/
And building bridges, encouraging honest debate, open-mindedness on all sides, etc... for whatever that's worth [cough-bootlicker!]

Yes, you a pronouncing that correctly. Yes, I have read your blog "they-let-it happen-on-purpose." It has a lot of good information. So which fence are you sitting on now, LIHOP or MIHOP? As for me, I find more agreement with blogger Arabesque regarding the LIHOP/MIHOP (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/disinformation-and-false-lihopmihop_06.html)distinction.

If you actually wonder about this, rather than just mentioning it for argument's sake - it's a good question. More people have tried to work around the intact columns 15-17 than the 16-foot hole. It looks a bit like columns there, if all broken and weird. Get this... this is crazy... the ASCE is wrong. Those are not columns in that spot.
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2007/07/columns-15-17-still-attached.html That is my explanation to that point.
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/Columns_15-17_Repaired.jpg

Alternately, maybe they are and somehow they just - didn't get - obliterated, like the others did. I guess that's possible.

I was wondering and arguing. I first heard that explanation (http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/columns.html) from Jim Hoffman. I did not find it entirely convincing though. It seems to be more special pleading to fit the evidence with the theory. Someone could also say that the right wing hit these columns, damaging them and then folded back. Which explanation should we believe?

It should also be noted that Jim Hoffman seems to support Eric Bart's plane bomb theory. He writes,

"Bart's theory, entitled on his web page "It was a plane bomb" (IWPB), fits the eyewitness accounts better than any competing theory, and is potentially compatible with the photographic evidence of damage to the facade. Despite the strong evidentiary support for Bart's theory it has received relatively little discussion, eclipsed by the attack drone and two-plane theories...According to this theory, the jetliner was shredded by shaped charges on the aircraft a split second before impact. It accounts for several features in the eyewitnesses' reports of the moment of impact that are difficult to reconcile with the official crash account, such as of the jet exploding or disintegrating before reaching the building...Bart's theory is consistent with the crash of Flight 77 at the Pentagon, but not with the official story that it was hijacked by Muslim terrorists, since it assumes the plane was prepared prior to the attack."

As for me, I remain undecided on the Pentagon attack. All the explanations that I've heard(missile, fly-over, Boeing 757, A-3 Skywarrior, Global Hawk, plane bomb etc) can't seem to account for all the available evidence. People try to come up with their own pet theory regarding the Pentagon attack then reason backwards to support it. I'm against people becoming dogmatic over the issue. Dogmatism leads to unnecessary divisions within the 9/11 Truth Movement.

To clarify, and do please show me wrong if you can, IF we call 'columns 15-17' gone as they should be, 9 panels wide, 90 feet, nothing left. At all. Ground floor. Big time. It's a friggin continent, the 16-footer's just a peninsula. Please read more closely.

I'm not sure. I would have to see a picture of a continuous hole. Many of the Pentagon photos seem rather murky.

The PBPR states, "It is likely that the exterior first-floor columns from column line 10 to column line 14 were removed entirely by the impact and that the exterior columns on column lines 9, 15, 16, and 17 were severely damaged."

As well, even a 90 foot hole on the first floor wouldn't account for the entire plane. The PBPR reports, "no portion of the outer two-thirds of the right wing and no portion of the outer one-third of the left wing actually entered the building."

The report then speculates as to why this might have occurred, but they don't seem to support their conclusions with any strong empirical evidence.

[Jonnyclueless]

I am sure you would prefe3r the cartoon theory where the plane punches out a hole the exact shape of the plane itself and leaves nothing in tact inside that area. Bugs Bunny physics.

[R.Mackey]

"Bart's theory, entitled on his web page "It was a plane bomb" (IWPB), fits the eyewitness accounts better than any competing theory, and is potentially compatible with the photographic evidence of damage to the facade. Despite the strong evidentiary support for Bart's theory it has received relatively little discussion, eclipsed by the attack drone and two-plane theories...According to this theory, the jetliner was shredded by shaped charges on the aircraft a split second before impact. It accounts for several features in the eyewitnesses' reports of the moment of impact that are difficult to reconcile with the official crash account, such as of the jet exploding or disintegrating before reaching the building..."

You've got to love Jim Hoffman for his wacky theories. Before he claimed that the WTC Towers must each have been destroyed by at least 2.3 kilotons TNT equivalent of explosives, because dust clouds can only grow through heating...

So let's see what we've got this time. We have an aircraft about to impact a recently rebuilt, blast-resistent structure with spirally wound concrete columns, at a speed of over 200 meters per second. Mr. Hoffman now claims that there must have been "shaped charges" -- presumably secreted in the leading edge of the aircraft wing -- to shred the wings milliseconds before impact.

Can you comprehend the pressure that the wings would feel as they hit those columns?? But apparently that's not good enough, so we must imagine a far greater pressure being applied by "explosives," somehow hidden in the aircraft itself... The amount of explosives needed to make any significant difference is not small, let's just leave it at that.

Also, there is the little question of "why."

This is the kind of hypothesis that scientists sometimes refer to as "failing the giggle test."


As well, even a 90 foot hole on the first floor wouldn't account for the entire plane. The PBPR reports, "no portion of the outer two-thirds of the right wing and no portion of the outer one-third of the left wing actually entered the building."

The report then speculates as to why this might have occurred, but they don't seem to support their conclusions with any strong empirical evidence.

The report is more concerned with collapse than specifics of the aircraft, and it is terse, so the answer is not well developed. However, it's quite simple. The inner two-thirds of the wings were the parts filled with fuel. The fuel tanks don't extend to the wingtips. This gives the inner two-thirds much more momentum, enough to defeat the perimeter columns, whereas the outer portions do not. See Chapter 10 of NCSTAR1-2B for a similar treatment of the 767's for the WTC impacts.

[Dave Rogers]

So let's see what we've got this time. We have an aircraft about to impact a recently rebuilt, blast-resistent structure with spirally wound concrete columns, at a speed of over 200 meters per second. Mr. Hoffman now claims that there must have been "shaped charges" -- presumably secreted in the leading edge of the aircraft wing -- to shred the wings milliseconds before impact.

Can you comprehend the pressure that the wings would feel as they hit those columns?? But apparently that's not good enough, so we must imagine a far greater pressure being applied by "explosives," somehow hidden in the aircraft itself... The amount of explosives needed to make any significant difference is not small, let's just leave it at that.

Also, there is the little question of "why."

Hoffman came up with the answer to that question in Scenario 404, I believe (at least, I assume it was Hoffman - it's on 9-11 Research, one of his websites). The scenario is a little different, in that he doesn't invoke explosives in the airliner wings; instead, he postulates a hidden AA rocket launcher under the Pentagon lawn which fires a missile just before impact, blowing off the tail of the airliner. As a result, although the impact damage to the Pentagon facade is caused by the airliner impact, the imprint of the tail is missing, causing the truth movement to hypothesise that something other than an airliner hit the Pentagon. This can then be used to discredit the truth movement as a whole, because it's sufficiently obvious that it actually was an airliner that caused the damage.

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/scenario404.html

Imagine the duplicity of the New World Order here! They have created an impact which was very obviously not caused by an airliner so as to fool truthers into disbelieving that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, yet at the same time very obviously was caused by an airliner, so as to discredit the opinions of those who saw the obvious fact that it wasn't caused by an airliner. It's so subtle that it must be true, and couldn't possibly be simply a projection of Hoffman's confusion and paranoia.

Dave

[boloboffin]

It's so subtle that it must be true, and couldn't possibly be simply a projection of Hoffman's confusion and paranoia.

:dl:

[JamesB]

A few minutes ago I e-mailed the following to Kevin Barrett and radio host Richard Greene. We will see if we ever get a response.

An Open Challenge to David Ray Griffin and the 9/11 Truth Movement

Dear Sirs:

I do not have the E-mail address of David Ray Griffin, but I am sure you both know how to contact him, so I will address this to you. There have been many ongoing discussions in connection to Air America Radio’s Richard Greene and his “Month of Truth” in regards to having “debunkers” on to provide the opposing viewpoint to the “9/11 Truth Movement”. Many debunkers, including Mark Roberts and my blogging partner Pat Curley, openly refused to come on last week’s show, for various reasons, but mostly revolving around the fact that Kevin Barrett and the guys from CIT were so controversial within their own movement, that engaging them would be pointless, and your time would be much better spent interviewing witnesses, and possibly even others within the truth movement who opposed them.

We were surprised however to see, not Kevin Barrett, but David Ray Griffin appearing on the show. As opposed to being a member of a faction within the movement Dr. Griffin is in fact widely considered the most prominent spokesman of the movement, and has authored 5 books and spoken widely on the subject. Even Mr. Greene praised him, calling him “The guru of the 9/11 truth movement “ and his work The New Pearl Harbor a “classic”.

Despite his prominence in the movement though, Griffin has largely avoided his critics. While such figures as Kevin Barrett, Steven Jones and Jim Fetzer may be controversial, even among other truthers, they at least have had the courage to advance and defend their own hypotheses, and engage critics, something which is normally done by academics in controversial areas. Dr. Griffin, however, has openly opposed advancing any but the vaguest theories, and has carefully avoided any situation where he would have to address any criticism, despite giving a plethora of speeches and radio interviews. As mentioned on last week’s show, NASA engineer Ryan Mackey prepared a detailed 200 page criticism of Dr. Griffin’s work, which to the best of my knowledge he has avoided even acknowledging, much less answering.

Therefore after his appearance on last week’s show, in which he once again dropped off the air before any questions could be asked of him by critics, we began discussing the fact that Dr. Griffin has avoided defending his arguments, despite the fact that the truth movement is constantly calling for an open and vigorous discussion of these events. Why then, does Dr. Griffin constantly refuse to engage in a discussion with anyone who disagrees with him? Does he believe that his work is beyond reproach? We believe that if he is so confident in his years of research, which have allowed him to sell many tens of thousands of books, that he should have no problem discussing it with an intellectual opponent.

So in this spirit we would like to propose a debate between David Ray Griffin and Mark Roberts on a subsequent episode of Richard Greene’s radio show, with Pat Curley and myself as possible co-guests if desired by the host. We understand that the host is biased, and accept that, but we just call on him to be fair, and fully expect that he would be so, and propose the following ground rules:

1) Roughly equal time for each participant to speak.

2) Discuss one – and only one – claim at a time. No long lists of claims (from either side) followed by, "In our limited time, which of those would you like to respond to?"

3) Be able to speak directly to each other with the host moving things along if the discussion bogs down.

4) Focus on discussing what Griffin thinks is the very strongest evidence in each area, so as not to get bogged down in minutiae. Griffin and Greene may pick the topics if they wish.

Given the open taunts by members of the movements when debunkers refused to come on the show earlier, I do not see how Dr. Griffin can in good spirit refuse to engage in this very debate you all have been calling for. Such an acclaimed academic, who is widely regarded as the foremost scholar of your movement should have no problem wiping the floor with any opponent, especially with the advantage of a friendly host and being able to choose the subjects, and I call upon the truth movement to encourage him and Mr. Greene to participate.

You both have my e-mail along with Mark Robert’s, please contact either Mark or I with any questions. We are open to any reasonable accommodations in scheduling and format to ensure that this event goes off.

Sincerely,

James
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com
Labels: Air America, David Ray Griffin

[Walter Ego]

The following message is from Rob Balsamo. I haven't listened to the off-air commotion yet.

(RB wrote)
Attached is the file. 11mins runtime.

I edited out on air dicussion except for the last segment. We only got the second hour off air chats as i said i didnt think of it until second hour. Feel free to post it on your websites.

We posted it here..
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=12450&view=findpost&p=10740626 (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=12450&view=findpost&p=10740626)

Here's a direct mp3 link of the off air chatter (11 min.) apparently recorded from Balsamo's telephone.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/AAR.mp3

At about the 7:00 mark Greene tells Ron he will not get 60 sec. of air time to make a general point about the whole pentagon CT issue.

[theauthor]

JamesB why do you continue to pretend that David Ray Griffin avoids his critics. I listened to a show with him and George Monbiot where he directly addressed debunkers claims. Admittedly the host wasn't hostile (James Whale I think) but Griffin did indeed go head to head with a prominent critic. Why do you keep saying he never does?

[Brainster]

JamesB why do you continue to pretend that David Ray Griffin avoids his critics. I listened to a show with him and George Monbiot where he directly addressed debunkers claims. Admittedly the host wasn't hostile (James Whale I think) but Griffin did indeed go head to head with a prominent critic. Why do you keep saying he never does?

Monbiot is not versed in the details. Griffin avoids anybody who can answer the arcana that the "Truthers" specialize in.

[theauthor]

Monbiot is not versed in the details. Griffin avoids anybody who can answer the arcana that the "Truthers" specialize in.

Don't strain yourself on those goalposts Pat.

[beachnut]

Don't strain yourself on those goalposts Pat.
DRG, Griffin, is pure hearsay. All of Griffin's ideas on 9/11 are false. It is hard to get a better record of being wrong. Too bad you can't support Griffin with some evidence.

Don't strain yourself and find some facts.

[MarkyX]

Don't strain yourself on those goalposts Pat.

That's why he refuses to be on Hardfire. Keep fantasizing about DRG debating with the opposition, just like you fantasize about your platonic friends.

[TC329]

If you actually wonder about this, rather than just mentioning it for argument's sake - it's a good question. More people have tried to work around the intact columns 15-17 than the 16-foot hole. It looks a bit like columns there, if all broken and weird. Get this... this is crazy... the ASCE is wrong. Those are not columns in that spot.
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2007/07/columns-15-17-still-attached.html That is my explanation to that point.
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/Columns_15-17_Repaired.jpg

Alternately, maybe they are and somehow they just - didn't get - obliterated, like the others did. I guess that's possible.

And this is why you're a joke Larson. I like your "graphic alteration" to suit your beliefs. It would be like CIT erasing an entire tail section sitting on the lawn from an image.

The columns are there. They are blown out and not in. That is because a plane did not hit the Pentagon and bombs were detonated instead.

CIT has 2 witnesses to the flyover now and soon there will be even more.

Mark Roberts and the rest of Randi's Cult can write all the emails in the world but it doesn't change the fact the security guard heard your "impact" and then ran outside and saw the commercial airliner flying away from the Pentagon.

Sorry Mark he was inside the building until the plane that flew over the Pentagon "hit" (your unsubstantiated conspiracy theory) it and then came out.

:eek:

[TC329]

I am sure you would prefe3r the cartoon theory where the plane punches out a hole the exact shape of the plane itself and leaves nothing in tact inside that area. Bugs Bunny physics.

yeah "Bugs Bunny" physics........

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/woman_wtc.jpg

[pomeroo]

And this is why you're a joke Larson. I like your "graphic alteration" to suit your beliefs. It would be like CIT erasing an entire tail section sitting on the lawn from an image.

The columns are there. They are blown out and not in. That is because a plane did not hit the Pentagon and bombs were detonated instead.

CIT has 2 witnesses to the flyover now and soon there will be even more.

Mark Roberts and the rest of Randi's Cult can write all the emails in the world but it doesn't change the fact the security guard heard your "impact" and then ran outside and saw the commercial airliner flying away from the Pentagon.

Sorry Mark he was inside the building until the plane that flew over the Pentagon "hit" (your unsubstantiated conspiracy theory) it and then came out.

:eek:


Sorry, Dom, NOBODY witnessed a flyover. The reason for this is that there was no flyover.

[Brainache]

And this is why you're a joke Larson. I like your "graphic alteration" to suit your beliefs. It would be like CIT erasing an entire tail section sitting on the lawn from an image.

The columns are there. They are blown out and not in. That is because a plane did not hit the Pentagon and bombs were detonated instead.

CIT has 2 witnesses to the flyover now and soon there will be even more.

Mark Roberts and the rest of Randi's Cult can write all the emails in the world but it doesn't change the fact the security guard heard your "impact" and then ran outside and saw the commercial airliner flying away from the Pentagon.

Sorry Mark he was inside the building until the plane that flew over the Pentagon "hit" (your unsubstantiated conspiracy theory) it and then came out.

:eek:

OK Dom, you've done it! You have comprehensively proved that 9/11 was an inside job..... Now what?

[pomeroo]

yeah "Bugs Bunny" physics........

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/woman_wtc.jpg


Imagine--those silly rationalists keep insisting that a plane made that, uh, plane-shaped hole! As your evil movement dies, you loons just get loonier.

Wouldn't it be great if the "security guard" had a name?

[HyJinX]

yeah "Bugs Bunny" physics........

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/woman_wtc.jpg

Oh Dom...you're so silly some times. Crazy as a bat's crap pile...but silly.

[TC329]

Sorry, Dom, NOBODY witnessed a flyover. The reason for this is that there was no flyover.

Ummm sorry Ron but people did witness a flyover.

How are you already calling these people liars when you haven't even heard their accounts yet? Oh I know just like you made your decision about every other eyewitness CIT has found without ever listening to a single thing they say.

As your idol Sean Hannity would say Ron, You are a great American!

You and your conjoined twin can throw temper tantrums and stomp your feet til your blue in the face but the guard inside the Pentagon heard your "impact" only to run outside and see your plane flying away from the scene.

[HyJinX]

Ummm sorry Ron but people did witness a flyover.


Lies. Nobody witnessed a flyover. Nobody. Go ahead and prove me wrong.

[TC329]

Imagine--those silly rationalists keep insisting that a plane made that, uh, plane-shaped hole! As your evil movement dies, you loons just get loonier.

Planes did make plane shaped holes at the WTC, Ron.

I was commenting about johnnyclueless thinking people are idiots for expecting a plane to make a plane shaped hole at the pentagon as well.

Wouldn't it be great if the "security guard" had a name?

Oh he does.

What?

You don't think CIT is going to release the interviews with the flyover witnesses?

[TC329]

Lies. Nobody witnessed a flyover. Nobody. Go ahead and prove me wrong.


CIT did weren't you listening?

[Reheat]

CIT has 2 witnesses to the flyover now and soon there will be even more.

It seems to me you've forgotten something. Before you go spouting about more witnesses perhaps you need to verify the previous ones were correct by proving ANY aircraft could fly the NoC route. I have PROVEN it can't and comply with witness statements.

That is NOT OPINION, that is aerodynamic fact. Even if you have 1000 witnesses, if you can't aerodynamically prove it is possible, it didn't happen. No rational person in the world believes you, that even includes a lot of troofers.

You, CIT, and pffft are epic failures and a joke on 9/11 issues!

[TC329]

It seems to me you've forgotten something. Before you go spouting about more witnesses perhaps you need to verify the previous ones were correct by proving ANY aircraft could fly the NoC route. I have PROVEN it can't and comply with witness statements.


LMMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CIT HAS FOUND FLYOVER WITNESSES.

WHO THE **** ARE YOU AGAIN?

[pomeroo]

Ummm sorry Ron but people did witness a flyover.

How are you already calling these people liars when you haven't even heard their accounts yet? Oh I know just like you made your decision about every other eyewitness CIT has found without ever listening to a single thing they say.

As your idol Sean Hannity would say Ron, You are a great American!

You and your conjoined twin can throw temper tantrums and stomp your feet til your blue in the face but the guard inside the Pentagon heard your "impact" only to run outside and see your plane flying away from the scene.


No, nobody saw a flyover. No flyover occurred. Your nameless "guard" could win someone a Pulitzer Prize, but he won't. You see, the frauds at CIT have been caught lying again.

[TC329]

No, nobody saw a flyover. No flyover occurred. Your nameless "guard" could win someone a Pulitzer Prize, but he won't. You see, the frauds at CIT have been caught lying again.


The nameless guard has a name Ron unlike the majority of the "experts" here at jref.

And perhaps you haven't been paying attention but I keep using words in the plural sense. :D

Ever watch any of CIT's interviews, Ron?

[Brainache]

LMMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CIT HAS FOUND FLYOVER WITNESSES.

WHO THE **** ARE YOU AGAIN?

The sad part in all of this is that you appear to be sincere. You actually believe this absurd load of bollocks, don't you TC?

[HyJinX]

CIT did weren't you listening?

CIT is the absolute laughing-stock of your silly movement. Nobody believes anything they say. When are you going to take your "evidence" to the proper authorities and do something. Up until now, you've done nothing but prove yourselves to be clowns, frauds and completely ridiculous. You do know that the very few who have heard of CIT think you're completely ridiculous, right?

Now...after almost 7 years...what have you got that would advance your silly little fairytale, Dom. When are you going to admit that you were just playing the audience. Because up til' now...you've done nothing but act like little whiny children.

[pomeroo]

Planes did make plane shaped holes at the WTC, Ron.

I was commenting about johnnyclueless thinking people are idiots for expecting a plane to make a plane shaped hole at the pentagon as well.


The liars and idiots are all members of your evil movement.



Oh he does.

What?

You don't think CIT is going to release the interviews with the flyover witnesses?



I don't think that--correction: I know with certainty that the frauds and jackasses of the CIT are not going to take their "evidence" to a real news outlet. You see, their "evidence," as always, is total rubbish.

[Reheat]

LMMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CIT HAS FOUND FLYOVER WITNESSES.

WHO THE **** ARE YOU AGAIN?

Oh, I'm just the guy who has PROVEN that you and your buddies are LOONS of the first order with delusions of unjustified grandeur.

Instead of LMMFAO you might establish some credibility by proving me wrong.


You can't!


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1840746c1f10359a41.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7720)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1840746c1f10359a41.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7720)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1840746c1f10359a41.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7720)

[HyJinX]

LMMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CIT HAS FOUND FLYOVER WITNESSES.

WHO THE **** ARE YOU AGAIN?

Who are you, obscure little internet boy?

[theauthor]

That's why he refuses to be on Hardfire. Keep fantasizing about DRG debating with the opposition, just like you fantasize about your platonic friends.

Reported.

[pomeroo]

The nameless guard has a name Ron unlike the majority of the "experts" here at jref.

And perhaps you haven't been paying attention but I keep using words in the plural sense. :D

Ever watch any of CIT's interviews, Ron?


The guard has no name until we see it on the front page of every daily in the nation.

CIT's dishonest interviews are worthless. The liars and frauds distort the words of witnesses who insist that saw a plane hit the Pentagon.

[HyJinX]

Reported.

Reported for baseless reporting. Idiot.

[pomeroo]

Reported.


Hey, P-doh, it takes cajones to dare to report someone when you are banned from this forum.

[theauthor]

Right, Pomeroo is going on ignore if he doesn't quit those tactics.

[Reheat]

WHO THE **** ARE YOU AGAIN?

I'll tell you something. If you EVER get a legitimate News Source to support your loony crap, I will reveal my identity and DESTROY your outlandish dishonest, delusional theories once and for all.

[TC329]

CIT is the absolute laughing-stock of your silly movement. Nobody believes anything they say. When are you going to take your "evidence" to the proper authorities and do something. Up until now, you've done nothing but prove yourselves to be clowns, frauds and completely ridiculous. You do know that the very few who have heard of CIT think you're completely ridiculous, right?

I don't believe that is an accurate reflection of how the truth movement feels regarding the eyewitness testimonials brought forward by CIT.

Perhaps you think LaGasse, Turcios, Brooks, Boger, Stephens, Paik, etc etc are "a laughing stock" of 9/11 but I don't and to date I can't find someone else who does either unless they have a hatred for all Arabs and love for all things Bush. I'm sure you fall into this category.

Now that CIT has found flyover witnesses I'm sure this won't be acceptable enough to neonazicons like yourself and now will move the goalposts to demanding we find a passenger from the flight you claimed hit the pentagon still alive somewhere............

[TC329]

Oh, I'm just the guy who has PROVEN that you and your buddies are LOONS of the first order with delusions of unjustified grandeur.

Instead of LMMFAO you might establish some credibility by proving me wrong.


You can't!

I don't really consider Lagasse, etc to be my "buddies".

Nor do I believe you have done anything to tarnish their testimony even if you are a super anonymous armchair research authoritive.

[HyJinX]

I don't believe that is an accurate reflection of how the truth movement feels regarding the eyewitness testimonials brought forward by CIT.

Perhaps you think LaGasse, Turcios, Brooks, Boger, Stephens, Paik, etc etc are "a laughing stock" of 9/11 but I don't and to date I can't find someone else who does either unless they have a hatred for all Arabs and love for all things Bush. I'm sure you fall into this category.

Now that CIT has found flyover witnesses I'm sure this won't be acceptable enough to neonazicons like yourself and now will move the goalposts to demanding we find a passenger from the flight you claimed hit the pentagon still alive somewhere............

Blah blah blah...you do realize that all your witnesses claim to have seen the plane hit the building. You guys actually debunked yourselves right from the start. You should have been smarter than that...you do realize this, correct? You have nothing. You never did. You can fight and fight and fight all you want...but in the end... you actually destroyed your own theory from day one. This, and this alone, is why we laugh at you.

It's ok to give up, Dom. You should. The longer you go on, the more of an ass you prove youself to be.

It's funny to watch.

[A W Smith]

Dom;

Your witness on the south parking lot loading doc can see over a 70 foot building? Or has your flyover up the river path been changed to a down the river path?

[Reheat]

I don't believe that is an accurate reflection of how the truth movement feels regarding the eyewitness testimonials brought forward by CIT.

Perhaps you think LaGasse, Turcios, Brooks, Boger, Stephens, Paik, etc etc are "a laughing stock" of 9/11 but I don't and to date I can't find someone else who does either unless they have a hatred for all Arabs and love for all things Bush. I'm sure you fall into this category.

Now that CIT has found flyover witnesses I'm sure this won't be acceptable enough to neonazicons like yourself and now will move the goalposts to demanding we find a passenger from the flight you claimed hit the pentagon still alive somewhere............

This is further evidence that you are delusional.

Your silly theory has been PROVEN aerodynamically impossible, consequently it is delusional and did not happen.

[TC329]

The guard has no name until we see it on the front page of every daily in the nation.

I'm sure Murdoch & Turner will be foaming at the mouths at Bohemian Grove when they catch wind of this......



CIT's dishonest interviews are worthless. The liars and frauds distort the words of witnesses who insist that saw a plane hit the Pentagon.

How about we get LaGasse, Brooks, Etc to appear on Hardlyfire so you can tell them how dishonest they are??

Oh wait you never even watched their interviews to know, huh Ron? (Watch how many times Ron avoids this question ;) )

[pomeroo]

I don't believe that is an accurate reflection of how the truth movement feels regarding the eyewitness testimonials brought forward by CIT.

Perhaps you think LaGasse, Turcios, Brooks, Boger, Stephens, Paik, etc etc are "a laughing stock" of 9/11 but I don't and to date I can't find someone else who does either unless they have a hatred for all Arabs and love for all things Bush. I'm sure you fall into this category.

Now that CIT has found flyover witnesses I'm sure this won't be acceptable enough to neonazicons like yourself and now will move the goalposts to demanding we find a passenger from the flight you claimed hit the pentagon still alive somewhere............



LaGasse despises you liars. Why do you pretend that he supports your insane fabrications? The frauds and fools at CIT have found nobody. The other night, Ranke produced a drunk who pretended to have seen a plane 50 ft off the ground while he was standing behind a 70 ft wall! Mark Roberts gently observed that your "witness" witnessed nothing.

[HyJinX]

INor do I believe you have done anything to tarnish their testimony even if you are a super anonymous armchair research authoritive.

No..you did this yourselves. Some investigative body :rolleyes:. Silly at best.

[pomeroo]

I'm sure Murdoch & Turner will be foaming at the mouths at Bohemian Grove when they catch wind of this......





How about we get LaGasse, Brooks, Etc to appear on Hardlyfire so you can tell them how dishonest they are??

Oh wait you never even watched their interviews to know, huh Ron? (Watch how many times Ron avoids this question ;) )


How many times must I state that I have no interest in your dishonest interviews? When you want to interview the same "witnesses" in the presence of a rationalist, let me know.

[theauthor]

So now the witness is a lying drunk? Have you no respect for victims of 9/11?

[pomeroo]

Right, Pomeroo is going on ignore if he doesn't quit those tactics.


P-doh, you're gone the moment the mods figure out your latest deception. Have fun while it lasts.

[pomeroo]

So now the witness is a lying drunk? Have you no respect for victims of 9/11?


P-doh, you're the biggest liar here. The phony guard is not a victim.

And, no, your despicable, evil movement has no respect for the victims of the jihadists.

[TC329]

LaGasse despises you liars.

Really?????

Where's your proof for this???

Because I can prove LaGasse despises you liars right now.....

Like I keep saying the "Official" report was based on structural engineers assements...not eyewitness or police reports, you know as well as I do engineers and scientists alike will use raw data and know variables to acertain the reason for anything, alot of waht happened on 9/11 was unique, never has a jet flown into a building built like the Pentagon, so if the data indicates one thing its very plausable that what actually happened is different. No on in the Gov't is discrediting mine or Brooks account because realistically it dosent matter if our accounts support an estimate from structural engineers, or whack job "witnesses". I know you guys are trying to get to the truth...the truth is there was no other aircraft, no missle, no anything other than Flt 77. And as for the people saying I am a liar, who really cares, I dont.


Looks like LaGasse doesn't give a **** about you clowns.

If there was no other aircraft then what silver commercial airliner did the security guard witness after running outside of the building into the parking lot after hearing the explosions?


Why do you pretend that he supports your insane fabrications? The frauds and fools at CIT have found nobody. The other night, Ranke produced a drunk who pretended to have seen a plane 50 ft off the ground while he was standing behind a 70 ft wall! Mark Roberts gently observed that your "witness" witnessed nothing.

Who determined the witness was "drunk" you or your boyfriend?
Just like how you guys started attacking ground zero heroes as being drunks who changed their stories after watching loose change to get some attention, huh?

You scumbag have sold this country out. You and your boyfriend are no different than PNAC members masterbating at the idea of a new Pearl Harbor to generate profits without end.

You sicken me. Traitor.

[Reheat]

I don't really consider Lagasse, etc to be my "buddies".

Nor do I believe you have done anything to tarnish their testimony even if you are a super anonymous armchair research authoritive.

It is not LaGasse to whom I was referring. He obviously made a mistake with his memory. It's CIT who has turn words on end to justify their delusion. Remember, LaGasse said the aircraft struck the Pentagon, CIT says he didn't see that along with all of the others who had a view.

Actually, I just look at your research and do the math. That's not difficult at all, in fact it's quite easy. You're delusions are simple to refute, all one needs is common sense and sanity.

[theauthor]

OK Ron, on ignore you go. Shame because you are mildly entertaining.

[Brainache]

Hang on, I just had a thought. (surprising, I'll admit) Who is supporting Bush in all of this? The people who agree with Al Qaeda who boast about their terrorism, or the people who think that the Bush Admin are capable of faking all the evidence of the attack on the pentagon? All the lightpoles thrown about by invisible secret agents, the secret agent cab driver, the aerodynamically impossible flight path etc.

TC why do you think the Government can do the impossible? Are they supermen?

[TC329]

So now the witness is a lying drunk? Have you no respect for victims of 9/11?

of course. thats how these traitors operate.

did you see them call a fdny ground zero hero a "drunk who watched loose change and changed his story" before i got suspended?

thats how they "debate" the evidence.

libel and slander.

all unsubstantiated.

all of it wrong.

perhaps they shouldn't post on forums when they're drunk?

[HyJinX]

Really?????

Where's your proof for this???

Because I can prove LaGasse despises you liars right now.....




Looks like LaGasse doesn't give a **** about you clowns.

If there was no other aircraft then what silver commercial airliner did the security guard witness after running outside of the building into the parking lot after hearing the explosions?
[/font]



Who determined the witness was "drunk" you or your boyfriend?
Just like how you guys started attacking ground zero heroes as being drunks who changed their stories after watching loose change to get some attention, huh?

You scumbag have sold this country out. You and your boyfriend are no different than PNAC members masterbating at the idea of a new Pearl Harbor to generate profits without end.

You sicken me. Traitor.

HyJinX pats little TC on the head and says "it's ok little fella...when you grow up, you'll realize how silly you've been thus far".

[pomeroo]

Really?????

Where's your proof for this???

Because I can prove LaGasse despises you liars right now.....




Looks like LaGasse doesn't give a **** about you clowns.

Oooops!


Lagasse, William
The Statements of Sgt. William Lagasse
Tue Jun 24 20:16:58 2003
208.152.73.64

GO TO LAST STATEMENT REPLY TO DICK EASTMAN.....

The Statements of Sgt. William Lagasse

Subject: 9-11
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:11:40 -0400
From: "Lagasse, William, , PFPA"
To: "'apfn@apfn.org (%22'apfn@apfn.org) '"


Dear Sir rest assured it was a Boeing 757 that flew into the building that
day, I was on duty as a pentagon police sgt. I was refueling my vehicle at
the barraks k gas station that day adjacent to the aircrafts flight path.
It was close enough that i could see the windows had the shades pulled down,
it struck several light poles next to rt 27 and struck a trailer used to
store construction equipment for the renovation of the pentagon that was to
the right of the fueselage impact point. The fact that you are insinuating
that this was staged and a fraud is unbelievable. You ask were the debris
is...well it was in the building..I saw it everywhere. I swear to god you
people piss me off to no end. I invite you and you come down and I will walk
you through it step by step. I have more than a few hours in general
aviation aircraft and can identify commercial airliners. Have you ever seen
photos of other aircraft accident photos...there usually isnt huge amounts
of debris left...how much did you see from the WTC?...are those fake
aircraft flying into the building. I know that this will make no diffrence
to you because to even have a websight like this you are obviously a
diffrent sort of thinker.


To: Sgt. WIlliam Lagasse
From: Dick Eastman

Dear Sgt. Lagasse,

Ken Varden considers you letter important enough to forward to several people interested in what REALLY happened.

Your statement indicates that you are a very good witnesses who knows planes and knows who what to look for.

Before passing on your letter to others who can't make up their minds what to believe, could you describe further all that you witnessed.

Is Barraks K in Fort Meyer, west of the crash, or is it attached to the Pentagon itself?

Where did the plane come in, in relation to the Naval Annex and the Columbia Pike?

Were you able to see what part of the Boeing hit the lamp posts and at what height the posts were "clipped"? (Or did you notice the downed poles afterwards?)

Where were you standing in relation to the crash point, the helipad, the trailor that was hit?
How far from the crash? I'd like to locate you on the map.

Several people saw the shades pulled down -- were you looking at the port (left) or starboard side?

Did you notice the plane tilt its wings or bank in its final flight?

Did you see the trailer being struck or is this based on your later observation of the damage?

How did the plane descend as it approached the Pentagon at the bottom of the hill?

You saw the debis everywhere in the building. Were you in the building or did you look in through the hole made in the crash before the wall collapsed?

Or did you go inside and look around at a later day?

What specific parts of the Boeing (passenger chairs, fuselage, aluminum frame etc.) did you see?

What debris did you see that you recognized as coming from a commercial airliner?

You saw the Boeing go by. Did you see the actual explosion? If so, can you describe how the plane went in.

I will pass on the letter you have already sent to places where this topic is being heatedly argued and where the majority of people have not yet made up their minds.

I must admit that I am heavily influenced by pictures of the hole and the video camera evidence -- but I cannot say I am 100 percent certain what happened.

I hope you give me the benefit of the doubt that I will not dismiss your observations out of hand. If I am mistaken, please believe it is an honest mistake and remember, I have never heard your story.

Sincerely,

Dick Eastman
Yakima


From: Lagasse, William, , PFPA
To: Dick Eastman

Mr. Eastman The barracks k gas station is were the press set up after the
attack, approx 500-600m west-south west of the pentagon. The aircraft
struck the poles in question, they were not blown down, the aircraft passed
almost directly over the naval annex splitting the distance between the ANC
and Columbia pike. and was approx 100-150ft agl when it passed over the
annex and continued on a shallow-fast decent and literally hit the building
were it met the ground. There was no steep bank, but a shallow bank with a
heavy uncoordinated left rudder turn causing a severe yaw into the building
with the starboard side of the cockpit actually hitting at about the same
time the wing was involved with the trailer, Because of the Doppler effect
no one could have heard the plane if they were on rt 27 until it was already
in the building, identifying its position and trajectory from that angle
would have been difficult if not impossible...it was not over Arlington
National Cemetery but closer to Columbia pike itself, there is a small grove
of trees that would have shielded anyone on 27 from seeing the aircraft
until it was literally on top of them...again not much time to make the
assessment. I identified it as American Airlines almost as soon as I saw
it and radioed that it had struck the building. I was on the Starboard side
of the aircraft. There was very little wake turbulence that I can recall,
which was surprising to me. The aircraft DID NOT have its landing gear or
flaps extended. whoever said the landing gear comes out when its that low
forgets the aircraft was exceeding the speed that would allow gear to be
extended. How and where the trailer was struck I cant speak of because rt 27
blocked my view slightly to the right because it is elevated. I did however
see it in person BEFORE any EMS/Fire arrived and it was fully engulfed in
flame 30-40 seconds after impact literally torn in half. you can see in a
few AP photos a tower workers 300zx on the left side of the impact point
that was struck adjacent to the fire truck that was hit. 3 fireman were
there at the tower as well as two persons in the tower that watched this
entire process and are luck to be alive. There was almost no debris to the
right/south of the impact point but I found a compressor blade and carbon
fiber pieces over 3/4 of a mile away to the north on 27 when we were
collecting evidence. The biggest piece of debris I saw was one of the
engines smashed...but intact in the building. I saw the building from the
inside and outside..before during and after the collapse and rest assured
that it was indeed an American airlines 757 that struck the Pentagon that
morning. no photos clearly show the size of the original breech...it was at
least 10-12 feet high and 20-30 feet wide not than size persons who weren't
there claim. I don't know what else I can say to convince you. I hope your
search for the truth will end with this e-mail as I have nothing to gain by
lying or distorting facts.. I live with what I saw everyday of my life, It
has taken a long time to deal with the images, screams and anger I felt
that day, to be honest your website angered me to the point I wanted to just
curse and rant and rave but I decided this would be much more helpful in
quelling misconceptions

[HyJinX]

OK Ron, on ignore you go. Shame because you are mildly entertaining.

LUCKY!!!! Ron...you always get ignored by the nut-nuts. Not fair.

[TC329]

It is not LaGasse to whom I was referring. He obviously made a mistake with his memory. It's CIT who has turn words on end to justify their delusion. Remember, LaGasse said the aircraft struck the Pentagon, CIT says he didn't see that along with all of the others who had a view.

Actually, I just look at your research and do the math. That's not difficult at all, in fact it's quite easy. You're delusions are simple to refute, all one needs is common sense and sanity.


Oh LaGasse made a mistake?

So then Brooks made a mistake too, right?

Levi Stephens?

Sean Boger?

Ed Paik?

Morin when he sees the plane over the Navy Annex?

All the eyewitnesses from Arlington National Cemetary who also place the plane on the north side of the citgo made a mistake too, right?

And now obviously CIT's flyover witnesses (whose accounts you haven't even heard yet) are also mistaken, correct?

wow being a super anonymous armchair research authoritive is a hell of a job!!!! when you can't argue something you can claim people are drunk/mistaken/hallucinating/lying.

oh please don't reveal yourself and destroy all of CIT's work Russell.......lol

[HyJinX]

Oooops!


Lagasse, William
The Statements of Sgt. William Lagasse
Tue Jun 24 20:16:58 2003
208.152.73.64

GO TO LAST STATEMENT REPLY TO DICK EASTMAN.....

The Statements of Sgt. William Lagasse

Subject: 9-11
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:11:40 -0400
From: "Lagasse, William, , PFPA"
To: "'apfn@apfn.org '"


Dear Sir rest assured it was a Boeing 757 that flew into the building that
day, I was on duty as a pentagon police sgt. I was refueling my vehicle at
the barraks k gas station that day adjacent to the aircrafts flight path.
It was close enough that i could see the windows had the shades pulled down,
it struck several light poles next to rt 27 and struck a trailer used to
store construction equipment for the renovation of the pentagon that was to
the right of the fueselage impact point. The fact that you are insinuating
that this was staged and a fraud is unbelievable. You ask were the debris
is...well it was in the building..I saw it everywhere. I swear to god you
people piss me off to no end. I invite you and you come down and I will walk
you through it step by step. I have more than a few hours in general
aviation aircraft and can identify commercial airliners. Have you ever seen
photos of other aircraft accident photos...there usually isnt huge amounts
of debris left...how much did you see from the WTC?...are those fake
aircraft flying into the building. I know that this will make no diffrence
to you because to even have a websight like this you are obviously a
diffrent sort of thinker.


To: Sgt. WIlliam Lagasse
From: Dick Eastman

Dear Sgt. Lagasse,

Ken Varden considers you letter important enough to forward to several people interested in what REALLY happened.

Your statement indicates that you are a very good witnesses who knows planes and knows who what to look for.

Before passing on your letter to others who can't make up their minds what to believe, could you describe further all that you witnessed.

Is Barraks K in Fort Meyer, west of the crash, or is it attached to the Pentagon itself?

Where did the plane come in, in relation to the Naval Annex and the Columbia Pike?

Were you able to see what part of the Boeing hit the lamp posts and at what height the posts were "clipped"? (Or did you notice the downed poles afterwards?)

Where were you standing in relation to the crash point, the helipad, the trailor that was hit?
How far from the crash? I'd like to locate you on the map.

Several people saw the shades pulled down -- were you looking at the port (left) or starboard side?

Did you notice the plane tilt its wings or bank in its final flight?

Did you see the trailer being struck or is this based on your later observation of the damage?

How did the plane descend as it approached the Pentagon at the bottom of the hill?

You saw the debis everywhere in the building. Were you in the building or did you look in through the hole made in the crash before the wall collapsed?

Or did you go inside and look around at a later day?

What specific parts of the Boeing (passenger chairs, fuselage, aluminum frame etc.) did you see?

What debris did you see that you recognized as coming from a commercial airliner?

You saw the Boeing go by. Did you see the actual explosion? If so, can you describe how the plane went in.

I will pass on the letter you have already sent to places where this topic is being heatedly argued and where the majority of people have not yet made up their minds.

I must admit that I am heavily influenced by pictures of the hole and the video camera evidence -- but I cannot say I am 100 percent certain what happened.

I hope you give me the benefit of the doubt that I will not dismiss your observations out of hand. If I am mistaken, please believe it is an honest mistake and remember, I have never heard your story.

Sincerely,

Dick Eastman
Yakima


From: Lagasse, William, , PFPA
To: Dick Eastman

Mr. Eastman The barracks k gas station is were the press set up after the
attack, approx 500-600m west-south west of the pentagon. The aircraft
struck the poles in question, they were not blown down, the aircraft passed
almost directly over the naval annex splitting the distance between the ANC
and Columbia pike. and was approx 100-150ft agl when it passed over the
annex and continued on a shallow-fast decent and literally hit the building
were it met the ground. There was no steep bank, but a shallow bank with a
heavy uncoordinated left rudder turn causing a severe yaw into the building
with the starboard side of the cockpit actually hitting at about the same
time the wing was involved with the trailer, Because of the Doppler effect
no one could have heard the plane if they were on rt 27 until it was already
in the building, identifying its position and trajectory from that angle
would have been difficult if not impossible...it was not over Arlington
National Cemetery but closer to Columbia pike itself, there is a small grove
of trees that would have shielded anyone on 27 from seeing the aircraft
until it was literally on top of them...again not much time to make the
assessment. I identified it as American Airlines almost as soon as I saw
it and radioed that it had struck the building. I was on the Starboard side
of the aircraft. There was very little wake turbulence that I can recall,
which was surprising to me. The aircraft DID NOT have its landing gear or
flaps extended. whoever said the landing gear comes out when its that low
forgets the aircraft was exceeding the speed that would allow gear to be
extended. How and where the trailer was struck I cant speak of because rt 27
blocked my view slightly to the right because it is elevated. I did however
see it in person BEFORE any EMS/Fire arrived and it was fully engulfed in
flame 30-40 seconds after impact literally torn in half. you can see in a
few AP photos a tower workers 300zx on the left side of the impact point
that was struck adjacent to the fire truck that was hit. 3 fireman were
there at the tower as well as two persons in the tower that watched this
entire process and are luck to be alive. There was almost no debris to the
right/south of the impact point but I found a compressor blade and carbon
fiber pieces over 3/4 of a mile away to the north on 27 when we were
collecting evidence. The biggest piece of debris I saw was one of the
engines smashed...but intact in the building. I saw the building from the
inside and outside..before during and after the collapse and rest assured
that it was indeed an American airlines 757 that struck the Pentagon that
morning. no photos clearly show the size of the original breech...it was at
least 10-12 feet high and 20-30 feet wide not than size persons who weren't
there claim. I don't know what else I can say to convince you. I hope your
search for the truth will end with this e-mail as I have nothing to gain by
lying or distorting facts.. I live with what I saw everyday of my life, It
has taken a long time to deal with the images, screams and anger I felt
that day, to be honest your website angered me to the point I wanted to just
curse and rant and rave but I decided this would be much more helpful in
quelling misconceptions


Hmmmmm....I'd call that a bitch-slap, TC. Wouldn't you?

[Reheat]

all of it wrong.

perhaps they shouldn't post on forums when they're drunk?

Speaking of wrong, where is your math. Got any?

That's what I thought = 0 facts, 0 math, just idle delusional words.

[Arus808]

Ummm sorry Ron but people did witness a flyover.

this is an outright lie. stop lying dom.

[TC329]

Oooops!


Lagasse, William
The Statements of Sgt. William Lagasse
Tue Jun 24 20:16:58 2003
208.152.73.64



CIT has no association with Dick Eastman.

I printed an email between CIT and Sgt LaGasse. It is from 5/2/2008.

Do you want Bill's email so you can contact him and "demand" he drop the North side of the Citgo claim???

Yeah, I didn't think you did......

[pomeroo]

Looks like LaGasse doesn't give a **** about you clowns.


Looks like you got caught again, liar.



If there was no other aircraft then what silver commercial airliner did the security guard witness after running outside of the building into the parking lot after hearing the explosions?



None. Your phony guard saw nothing.



Who determined the witness was "drunk" you or your boyfriend?



A tad homophobic, are we, little fella?




Just like how you guys started attacking ground zero heroes as being drunks who changed their stories after watching loose change to get some attention, huh?


Names, please. Oh, right--you don't have any.



You scumbag have sold this country out. You and your boyfriend are no different than PNAC members masterbating at the idea of a new Pearl Harbor to generate profits without end.

You sicken me. Traitor.



A homophobic liar is calling a patriot names? How ridiculous. You mindless liars are trying absolve fanatic, murderous enemies of this nation of all wrongdoing and you dare to complain about the people who are exposing your evil agenda? You have no idea how much you and your deranged colleagues sicken decent, rational people.

[Reheat]

Oh LaGasse made a mistake?

So then Brooks made a mistake too, right?

Levi Stephens?

Sean Boger?

Ed Paik?

Morin when he sees the plane over the Navy Annex?

All the eyewitnesses from Arlington National Cemetary who also place the plane on the north side of the citgo made a mistake too, right?

And now obviously CIT's flyover witnesses (whose accounts you haven't even heard yet) are also mistaken, correct?

wow being a super anonymous armchair research authoritive is a hell of a job!!!! when you can't argue something you can claim people are drunk/mistaken/hallucinating/lying.

oh please don't reveal yourself and destroy all of CIT's work Russell.......lol

No, not all of your witnesses made a mistake unless you say so. Only those who said they saw an aircraft fly an impossible route North of the Citgo station. In fact, I'd guess Paik (the first interview) are correct or nearly so, it's those NoC that are mistaken because the aircraft COULD NOT do what they said and I've proven it with recognized aerodynamic facts. CIT only replies with dishonest words and more witnesses who are wrong.

[TC329]

Speaking of wrong, where is your math. Got any?


yea i got some math for you :


multiple eyewitnesses to the flyover > super anonymous armchair research authoritive.


can you understand that formula yet?

[pomeroo]

CIT has no association with Dick Eastman.

I printed an email between CIT and Sgt LaGasse. It is from 5/2/2008.

Do you want Bill's email so you can contact him and "demand" he drop the North side of the Citgo claim???

Yeah, I didn't think you did......


You thought wrong again. Yeah, I want LaGasse's e-mail address. Put up or shut up.

[TC329]

blah blah blah.

who invented the claim the witness is a drunk, ron?

[pomeroo]

yea i got some math for you :


multiple eyewitnesses to the flyover > super anonymous armchair research authoritive.


can you understand that formula yet?


Corrected math:

ZERO (0) witnesses to a flyover;

100 witnesses to a plane hitting the Pentagon.

No, you can't understand that formula, liar.

[pomeroo]

who invented the claim the witness is a drunk, ron?



Let's stick to proving the witness exists. We can discuss his drinking habits later.

[HyJinX]

multiple eyewitnesses to the flyover

Why do lie, Dom, Why?

Nobody saw a flyover. Nobody. You keep lying. It's embarrasing, man.

[Arus808]

can you explain how your "witness" was able to see over a 70 foot wall to see a plane fly over the pentagon, opposite of where he was standing?

[WildCat]

I printed an email between CIT and Sgt LaGasse. It is from 5/2/2008.
Is this where he said:
I know you guys are trying to get to the truth...the truth is there was no other aircraft, no missle, no anything other than Flt 77. And as for the people saying I am a liar, who really cares, I dont.
:dl:

[Reheat]

yea i got some math for you :


multiple eyewitnesses to the flyover > super anonymous armchair research authoritive.


can you understand that formula yet?

You and your cronies are intellectually dishonest frauds! Since when do witnesses trump Isaac Newton and every physicists since the apple fell on his head?

[Arus808]

anyone in DC want to take a photo of where this "witness" supposedly saw the plane fly over, from his position?

[pomeroo]

LUCKY!!!! Ron...you always get ignored by the nut-nuts. Not fair.


Understand that I identified "theauthor" as P-doh after he trotted out all of that cretin's favorite hobby-horses. I may be guessing, but I'd bet heavily that I'm right.

[boloboffin]

Wildcat saw it. Unbe-frickin-lievable.

[Reheat]

anyone in DC want to take a photo of where this "witness" supposedly saw the plane fly over, from his position?

Man, gasoline is expensive, so I hope no one makes a special trip. It's senseless as their entire NoC/flyover theory is proven delusional crap dreamed up by CIT and those who support their fraudulent behavior.

[HyJinX]

Understand that I identifed "theauthor" as P-doh after he trotted out all of that cretin's favorite hobby-horses. I may be guessing, but I'd bet heavily that I'm right.

I'll put $10 on the fact that you ARE right. Still...I love the way the crazies seem to get into a tizzy and put you on ignore. Yet, they call you the loon of the rationalists. Not to toot your horn or anything, because we don't see eye-to-eye politically...but I do find it amusing that you're the target when they call us "loons" and yet they fall all over themselves to get away from your rational behavior.

[A W Smith]

Dom; perhaps you missed this question

Your witness on the south parking lot loading doc can see over a 70 foot building? Or has your flyover up the river path been changed to a down the river path?

[jaydeehess]

Oh LaGasse made a mistake?

You and the CIT make no bones about LaGasse having made a mistake in his comment that the plane hit the Pentagon.
Personally I believe he was correct in that but incorrect as to the flight path. So why do you continue along this line TC when you obviously must accept that Lagasse made a mistake?

So then Brooks made a mistake too, right?

Same applies to Brooks , who also said it hit the Pentagon.

Sean Boger?

Hit the building

Ed Paik?

Illustrates that the plane flew along C.Pike.

Morin when he sees the plane over the Navy Annex?

He didn't. He said it flew parallel to the annex.

All the eyewitnesses from Arlington National Cemetary who also place the plane on the north side of the citgo made a mistake too, right?

Yeah, only if you twist their words to fit. That amount of twisting will leave a mark.

And now obviously CIT's flyover witnesses (whose accounts you haven't even heard yet) are also mistaken, correct?

No one at all ever has said that the plane flew over the Pentagon have they TC? Certainly no one that you care to name.


But then who am I other than an anonymous, possibly gay, traitor, posting on the internet, right Dom?
Words cannot convey the distain I feel towards you and your ilk who wish to further their own political agenda by deflecting blame from fanatic terrorists.

[16.5]

Oh brother.

When is CIT going to realize that every time they cherry pick another witness, they stick their feet even deeper in their mouths.

They have a flyover witness (not a real one of course, reading comprehension is a major weakness of the CIT) in Arlington, but wait, Morin could not see a plane flying over Arlington.

They find another, one inside the loading dock, who sees two planes, but wait, that contradicts their star witnesses at CITGO, who did not see two planes.

These guys are grossly incompetent. They claim they don't have a theory anymore, because: 1. they can't support a flight path; 2. their witnesses contradict one another. What a farce. And everyone OF THEIR OWN WITNESSES SAYS THE FREAKING PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON!

Now they claim that they have an e-mail from Lagasse. I assume they do, I am sure those frauds at CIT falsely told him that people on the internet were calling him a liar. And he responded by asserting again (and again and again) that the plane hit the Pentagon, the very thing that the CIT claims he is lying about!

What a sad little pack of delusional frauds.

Dom, tell your pals to come up with a flight path.

/ps: good luck with your silly little suicide by mod act!
//did Craig forgive you for calling him an ass kisser?

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by TC329
yea i got some math for you :


multiple eyewitnesses to the flyover > super anonymous armchair research authoritive.


can you understand that formula yet? You and your cronies are intellectually dishonest frauds! Since when do witnesses trump Isaac Newton and every physicists since the apple fell on his head?

Reminds me of a discussion I had with an Apollohoax believer who said the dust fell too quickly as it was thrown up by the rover.

I showed, using math and physics, that of terminal velocity in Earth's atmosphere of a dust particle and the force and acelleration on those particles due to Earth's and the Moon's gravity. I was then told that I was using 'data supplied by NASA' and that it was therefore all suspect. The 'data' I was using was math and physics worked out 200 years ago!

TC mistrusts your math and physics because he fails to understand that it is all well established over the last 60 years and earlier, much earlier. He, and his cronies at CIT have absolutly no understanding of the math and physics involved. You might as well be telling this to a 6 year old. The 6 year old would have as much of an understanding of the concepts as they do.

[pomeroo]

I'll put $10 on the fact that you ARE right. Still...I love the way the crazies seem to get into a tizzy and put you on ignore. Yet, they call you the loon of the rationalists. Not to toot your horn or anything, because we don't see eye-to-eye politically...but I do find it amusing that you're the target when they call us "loons" and yet they fall all over themselves to get away from your rational behavior.


Most of my friends are liberals. I don't get upset with people who disagree with my political views. What the hell--I may be wrong. When the loons put you on ignore, you know you're hitting the target. To P-doh's somewhat dubious credit, he hasn't actually denied my claims about him.

[Jonnyclueless]

One of us is gonna have to eventually give in and claim to be a witness that saw the plane fly over the building as well as watched NWO agents planting light poles. I mean how much fun would that not be?

[16.5]

CIT's New witness story:

"He then runs 7 steps out to the edge of the loading dock (he was on the east end) where he see's a silver commercial aircraft less 100 ft over light poles in the south parking lot, banking out and doing a turn back. He believed there were actually two commercial craft involved. There will be more details from his account to come."

Yikes! I look forward to CIT's explanation of why their star witnesses at CITGO missed these astonishing facts! They saw a plane North of Citgo, but missed a plane banking over the South parking lot.

And a plane over Arlington!

And Morin's plane on the outside of the annex!

I can't wait to see them wrap THIS up in a bow! A crazy little bow tied by incompetent frauds.

[nicepants]

yeah "Bugs Bunny" physics........

Planes did make plane shaped holes at the WTC, Ron.

I was commenting about johnnyclueless thinking people are idiots for expecting a plane to make a plane shaped hole at the pentagon as well.

Aluminum, glass & steel:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/woman_wtc.jpg


Concrete:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/SandiaF4Montage.jpg/SandiaF4Montage-full.jpg

Why do you expect identical results with different controls?

Another Quick question, TC...what does your "flyover witness" say happened to flight 77?

[Brainache]

One of us is gonna have to eventually give in and claim to be a witness that saw the plane fly over the building as well as watched NWO agents planting light poles. I mean how much fun would that not be?

Of course the problem with that would be that when you eventually come clean and tell them you've been pulling their leg, they'd accuse you of being bought off and then start with the death threats. Does anyone want that?

[realitybites]

Hey Dom.

I'm here in Harrisburg helping some of my government friends put the finishing touches on FEMA Death Camp: Keystone Edition. We just got a couple thousand yards of electrical fence to top off with some razor wire, and then it's off to plant land mines in the "recreation" area. But after that we're pretty much done and will start general admission.

So if you wouldn't mind getting your fly-over witnesses, NOC witnesses, ANC witnesses, etc. off to the grand jury to stop this madness, I'd appreciate it. I have a feeling they're gonna ask me to sign on for the summer and I'd really rather not spend my July and August outside cleaning the acid vats (... just gets so humid here).

Thanks!

[Caustic Logic]

LaGasse despises you liars. Why do you pretend that he supports your insane fabrications? The frauds and fools at CIT have found nobody. The other night, Ranke produced a drunk who pretended to have seen a plane 50 ft off the ground while he was standing behind a 70 ft wall! Mark Roberts gently observed that your "witness" witnessed nothing.

What? Witnesses can hallucinate under the DTs? Next you'll be saying they can even say they saw something they didn't. That makes no sense, CIT will remind you, unless...

Finally having heard it, the guy does sound drunk, garrulous, disgruntled, something. "Yeah, I saw your second plane cover story thing, fire and plane, uh. banking away after the main plane impacted, which I still believe of course. I SAW IT! It flew over!" Everyone else: crickets. One pull-up account that makes no sense anyway from about five angles.

to CIT words = TRUE IF they contradict or can be said to contradict the 'official story.'
ANYTHING that contradicts said words, no matter how many other words, pictures, facts = lies.
Proof = self-evident, a priori
Actual coherent Evidence = irrelevant given above proof

Citizen Investigation? Comedy Improv? It really is that stupid.

[Caustic Logic]

And this is why you're a joke Larson. I like your "graphic alteration" to suit your beliefs. It would be like CIT erasing an entire tail section sitting on the lawn from an image.

Ha! I'm a joke? Did I not carefully include the original photo in the same graphic? Does it not make more sense however after the correction? Tell me, TerrierCell the attack puppy, How do YOU define '2:00' relative to yourself? Far ahead and slightly left, or left and slightly ahead? Are you certain as well that Scoggins' 6 SE -> 6 SW is an update and not a correction? Could Mrs. Hubbard see the plane the others saw out here east-facing window? Does Lagasse REALLY recall the light poles and cab being north of the Citgo? How many pull-up-to-fly-over witnesses do you count compared to low and level or descending accounts? How many 'hit the lawn' errors compared to 'clipped the roof' errors? How many flyover reports compared to explicit impact ones?

The columns are there. They are blown out and not in. That is because a plane did not hit the Pentagon and bombs were detonated instead.

NONE of you has ever demonstrated the "out" claim. 'Column 16' looks not blown up at all, just yanked over to the left at the bottom. These are columns, insists CIT because the ASCE says so.

CIT has 2 witnesses to the flyover now and soon there will be even more.


Says - - - you. Huh! It's May, 2008. The flyover was first decided on in August 2006. These are your first flyover witnesses. One of them is NEIT 567 (http://www.aal77.com/cmh_foia/neit567.pdf), isn't it? My God this is getting stupid. Good foreshadowing there. When you're gathering crumbs and dust bunnies to glue together, you better talk up the promised German chocolate cake a fair amount.

[bje]

Ummm sorry Ron but people did witness a flyover.

How are you already calling these people liars when you haven't even heard their accounts yet? Oh I know just like you made your decision about every other eyewitness CIT has found without ever listening to a single thing they say.

TC329, if you are so certain of CIT's claim of a flyover, then you and CIT must have interviewed the hundreds of eyewitnesses who were inside the Pentagon in the minutes, hours, and days after the event, saw the wreckage, recovered the wreckage, and saw or took part in the sorting of the wreckage on the lawn of the Pentagon, in the open, under an open tent, correct?

Only one problem, TC. Every truther since Dick Eastman in 2002 has either refused to do those interviews, refused to reveal the statements if they did the interviews, or refused to answer the question.

You can include Creg Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and Ray Balsamo in that list, all of those who have refused to provide any statements from these hundreds of eyewitnesses. None of them can even give a reason why those statements are not important.

Now it's your turn for the record, TC329. What wreckage did those hundreds of people see and recover from inside the Pentagon? These statements are crucial to CIT's claim of a flyover.

If you do not know the answer, or you do not think those statements are important, please have the courtesy of telling us why. Here is your chance to do what every other 9/11 Truther has been unable to do since the question was first posed in 2002.

[pomeroo]

TC329, if you are so certain of CIT's claim of a flyover, then you and CIT must have interviewed the hundreds of eyewitnesses who were inside the Pentagon in the minutes, hours, and days after the event, saw the wreckage, recovered the wreckage, and saw or took part in the sorting of the wreckage on the lawn of the Pentagon, in the open, under an open tent, correct?

Only one problem, TC. Every truther since Dick Eastman in 2002 has either refused to do those interviews, refused to reveal the statements if they did the interviews, or refused to answer the question.

You can include Creg Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and Ray Balsamo in that list, all of those who have refused to provide any statements from these hundreds of eyewitnesses. None of them can even give a reason why those statements are not important.

Now it's your turn for the record, TC329. What wreckage did those hundreds of people see and recover from inside the Pentagon? These statements are crucial to CIT's claim of a flyover.

If you do not know the answer, or you do not think those statements are important, please have the courtesy of telling us why. Here is your chance to do what every other 9/11 Truther has been unable to do since the question was first posed in 2002.


Precisely. The clowns of the CIT are a bad joke because they turn the ethics of investigative journalism upside-down. Everything that can't be shoehorned into their fantasy gets swept under the rug and a few cherry-picked accounts become the whole story. It doesn't matter if their witnesses conflict with each other. They ignore all of the physical evidence, systematically eliminate the great majority of witnesses, and, with straight faces, ask the rest of us to take their mad hypothesis seriously.

[Stellafane]

Precisely. The clowns of the CIT are a bad joke because they turn the ethics of investigative journalism upside-down. Everything that can't be shoehorned into their fantasy gets swept under the rug and a few cherry-picked accounts become the whole story. It doesn't matter if their witnesses conflict with each other. They ignore all of the physical evidence, systematically eliminate the great majority of witnesses, and, with straight faces, ask the rest of us to take their mad hypothesis seriously.

This is why I suspect that deep down many truthers like TC know full well they're full of crap, and that the whole thing to them is just some monstrous lark, a sort of reality-based role playing game that exists in the bleak, shadowy twilight world that passes for the truther "mind." Anyone even remotely interested in the real truth could easily find it in abundance with about 30 minutes of light work. It's right out there for the asking, facts so incontrovertable they'd exonerate a dog in front of an all-cat jury. Instead, truthers fill up their otherwise empty hours searching for the few, the confused, the deluded, whose incoherent ramblings are somehow supposed to be suffused with great import.

Behold the Truth Movement: A conspiracy totally built out of crap.

[1337m4n]

Hey Dom, can I see transcripts of these flyover witness testimonies?

[16.5]

Hey Dom, you better get over to Loose Change and throw a bucket of water on Waldo. It seems he has ticked off an admin, because the admin had audacity to question the CIT's "jumping the gun."

"Jumping the gun" is a nice way of saying: why the hell don't you get your story together and start making sure your new witnesses don't contradict your old witnesses. You got enough trouble as it is anyways because ALL your witnesses say the freaking plane hit the Pentagon.

And the next step is for that admin to realize what mopes the CIT are. He'll start thinking for himself: wait a minute, what is all this flyover Arlington crap? Their guy Morin could not see a plane flying over Arlington because the Annex was in the way, and what is this stuff about the South parking lot? How in the hell does a plane get from North of Citgo to the South Parking lot? How in the hell did we let these No Plane at the Pentagon Nitwits hijack our board?

[Bobert]

Hey Dom, can I see transcripts of these flyover witness testimonies?

WOW now that would be completely shocking if they even did something like that.
Well first you might to tell Dom what a transcript is.
They may have to call a treefort meeting to discuss this.
:D
HINT for Dom,
"transcripts" ARE NOT what you get from the Weed Man.

[jaydeehess]

Precisely. The clowns of the CIT are a bad joke because they turn the ethics of investigative journalism upside-down. Everything that can't be shoehorned into their fantasy gets swept under the rug and a few cherry-picked accounts become the whole story. It doesn't matter if their witnesses conflict with each other. They ignore all of the physical evidence, systematically eliminate the great majority of witnesses, and, with straight faces, ask the rest of us to take their mad hypothesis seriously.

Since Dom, and the rest of the CIT club, cannot abide any math, and given that they then place so much on the spoken recollections of their witnesses, perhaps we can list the recollections that the CIT ignores/sweeps under the rug.

1) their witnesses do not agree with each other on the flight path of the aircraft. Lagasse for instance put it much further north than did Turcios.

2) all witnesses in a location from which they could see the wall of the Pentagon that was impacted say that the plane hit the Pentagon. For instance Boger, Lagasse, Turcios, Brooks. Of these we know for a fact that Boger was in a position to see the plane right up to impact. Brooks, Lagasse and Turcios could not see the ground floor of the building but could see the roof yet none of saw a flyover

3) Aside from this new, unnamed and anonymous witness, no one at all says that a plane approached the impact side of the Pentagon low and fast and then pulled up and over the building.

4) The new witness says that he was in the south parking lot with the bulk of the 70 foot tall Pentagon to his north and he saw two planes approach the Pentagon and that one of them flew low over it and pulled away to the north basically meaning that he had to be able to see through the building to witness what he says he did.

ETA: Of course this does not address the words that they twist to fit their needs such as Morin's description of the flight path as being parallel to the annex

[realitybites]

Since Dom, and the rest of the CIT club, cannot abide any math, and given that they then place so much on the spoken recollections of their witnesses, perhaps we can list the recollections that the CIT ignores/sweeps under the rug.

1) their witnesses do not agree with each other on the flight path of the aircraft. Lagasse for instance put it much further north than did Turcios.

2) all witnesses in a location from which they could see the wall of the Pentagon that was impacted say that the plane hit the Pentagon. For instance Boger, Lagasse, Turcios, Brooks. Of these we know for a fact that Boger was in a position to see the plane right up to impact. Brooks, Lagasse and Turcios could not see the ground floor of the building but could see the roof yet none of saw a flyover

3) Aside from this new, unnamed and anonymous witness, no one at all says that a plane approached the impact side of the Pentagon low and fast and then pulled up and over the building.

4) The new witness says that he was in the south parking lot with the bulk of the 70 foot tall Pentagon to his north and he saw two planes approach the Pentagon and that one of them flew low over it and pulled away to the north basically meaning that he had to be able to see through the building to witness what he says he did.

ETA: Of course this does not address the words that they twist to fit their needs such as Morin's description of the flight path as being parallel to the annex

It's gotta say something about one's evidence if a person like myself, whose only legal experience consists of random viewings of Law & Order: SVU, could easily cross-examine, and subsequently shred, their entire case.

[beachnut]

So now the witness is a lying drunk? Have you no respect for victims of 9/11?
He was no a victim. And you are a no planer like the delusional CIT?

[Caustic Logic]

Flyover witness - hears explosion and then looks out/up and sees a silver commercial aircraft very low and banking away.

“I stepped out the little booth that I was in and the distance between that booth and the edge of that dock is about maybe only seven steps away from there so it’s just extrememly close. You could see that plane just as clear as day.”
[...] “It was, to me, at that time, it looked like it was silver in color.”
[…] Aldo: ”[...]you saw it over the south parking lot?”
“Right. Around the lane one area and it was like banking just above the light poles like – had to be no more than 50 feet, or less than a hundred feet."
Aldo: "Wow. Are you 100% certain it was a jet, an actual jet plane?"
“Commercial aircraft”
Aldo: “So there was another commercial aircraft in the area as the plane hit then basically, is that what you think?"
"Yes sir, it’s not what I think I saw it. It it was two aircraft, that’s for sure."

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/Flover_south_witness_loc.jpg
I don't see too many other ways to read this.

[Jonnyclueless]

Looks like they're gonna need a bigger shovel...

[bje]

This is why I suspect that deep down many truthers like TC know full well they're full of crap, and that the whole thing to them is just some monstrous lark, a sort of reality-based role playing game that exists in the bleak, shadowy twilight world that passes for the truther "mind."

I think you are fundamentally correct on that point and it is especially true of CIT.

[Reheat]

Flyover witness - hears explosion and then looks out/up and sees a silver commercial aircraft very low and banking away.

“I stepped out the little booth that I was in and the distance between that booth and the edge of that dock is about maybe only seven steps away from there so it’s just extrememly close. You could see that plane just as clear as day.”
[...] “It was, to me, at that time, it looked like it was silver in color.”
[…] Aldo: ”[...]you saw it over the south parking lot?”
“Right. Around the lane one area and it was like banking just above the light poles like – had to be no more than 50 feet, or less than a hundred feet."
Aldo: "Wow. Are you 100% certain it was a jet, an actual jet plane?"
“Commercial aircraft”
Aldo: “So there was another commercial aircraft in the area as the plane hit then basically, is that what you think?"
"Yes sir, it’s not what I think I saw it. It it was two aircraft, that’s for sure."

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/Flover_south_witness_loc.jpg
I don't see too many other ways to read this.

A helicopter or perhaps a Sopwith Camel, maybe, but any large aircraft traveling fast enough to stay airborne would need to pull a gazillion G's to do a turn like that. Just like the NoC crap it didn't happen.

This is another of the Clowns In Training delusions.

[1337m4n]

Okay this is quite simple:

1) Eyewitness testimonies are known to be fallible

2) The laws of physics aren't

Are we done here?

[Boone 870]

The new flyover witness describes the flight path of the C-130. He never explicitly states that he saw two aircraft, just that there were two aircraft.

Who knows, maybe there were three aircraft in the area near the time of the impact. I'm sure CIT will clear it all up with with their next video short.

[pomeroo]

He was no a victim. And you are a no planer like the delusional CIT?


He, "theauthor," is none other than the ineffable P-doh.

[Cobalt]

Okay this is quite simple:

1) Eyewitness testimonies are known to be fallible

2) The laws of physics aren't

Are we done here?

Sadly, probably not.

[Brainster]

Flyover witness - hears explosion and then looks out/up and sees a silver commercial aircraft very low and banking away.

“I stepped out the little booth that I was in and the distance between that booth and the edge of that dock is about maybe only seven steps away from there so it’s just extrememly close. You could see that plane just as clear as day.”
[...] “It was, to me, at that time, it looked like it was silver in color.”
[…] Aldo: ”[...]you saw it over the south parking lot?”
“Right. Around the lane one area and it was like banking just above the light poles like – had to be no more than 50 feet, or less than a hundred feet."
Aldo: "Wow. Are you 100% certain it was a jet, an actual jet plane?"
“Commercial aircraft”
Aldo: “So there was another commercial aircraft in the area as the plane hit then basically, is that what you think?"
"Yes sir, it’s not what I think I saw it. It it was two aircraft, that’s for sure."

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/Flover_south_witness_loc.jpg
I don't see too many other ways to read this.

The other possibility is that their witness was 90 feet tall.

[uk_dave]

The other possibility is that their witness was 90 feet tall.

Don't be silly.....

...Around the lane one area and it was like banking just above the light poles like – had to be no more than 50 feet, or less than a hundred feet."

It would have hit him.

[Stellafane]

He, "theauthor," is none other than the ineffable P-doh.

"Ineffable," huh? That's the problem with so many truthers, sexual frustration has driven them crazy.

[pomeroo]

"Ineffable," huh? That's the problem with so many truthers, sexual frustration has driven them crazy.


I guess I should have written "ineffable" and "uneffable."

[jaydeehess]

The other possibility is that their witness was 90 feet tall.

IIRC the Pentagon is 77 feet high so all he needs to be is 78 feet tall.


See UK_Dave, it would not have hit him.

[jaydeehess]

Flyover witness - hears explosion and then looks out/up and sees a silver commercial aircraft very low and banking away.

“I stepped out the little booth that I was in and the distance between that booth and the edge of that dock is about maybe only seven steps away from there so it’s just extrememly close. You could see that plane just as clear as day.”
[...] “It was, to me, at that time, it looked like it was silver in color.”
[…] Aldo: ”[...]you saw it over the south parking lot?”
“Right. Around the lane one area and it was like banking just above the light poles like – had to be no more than 50 feet, or less than a hundred feet."
Aldo: "Wow. Are you 100% certain it was a jet, an actual jet plane?"
“Commercial aircraft”
Aldo: “So there was another commercial aircraft in the area as the plane hit then basically, is that what you think?"
"Yes sir, it’s not what I think I saw it. It it was two aircraft, that’s for sure."

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/Flover_south_witness_loc.jpg
I don't see too many other ways to read this.

I need to ask, Caustic Logic, is that a transcript produced by the CIT?

What does he mean by
“Right. Around the lane one area.."? Aldo asked him "you saw it over the south parking lot?” perhaps he misheard the question and understood he was being asked "you were at the south parking lot?"

What other way can this be looked at?

Could he have seen Flight 77 at any point along its path banking in towards the Pentagon, "just above the light poles"?

So, here's a senario, take or discard it;
He steps away from the booth and away from the side of the Pentagon and sees AA flt 77 banking in towards the Pentagon. If so then it had to be on a path south of the Citgo. He can see it until it disappears around the corner of the Pentagon, looks up to see if it went over the building and sees the C-130, another twin engine aircraft grey in color (not much different than silver). He obviously never says that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. He has also not said that a plane approached the Pentagon then flew over it and banked to the south. He claims a second plane and given that no one puts a second plane next to the plane that approached the Pentagon low and fast there would be no confusing one with the other.
He simply cannot say that a plane flew over and banked away to the north given that the building would block that view.


He is then interviewed by Aldo, says where he was and starts to say what he saw. Aldo asks about if the plane was over the south parking lot. This is a ridiculous question to someone who saw the plane approach amnd instead he hears/understands that Aldo has again asked where he was when he saw this he answers using a different way to identify hwre he was, 'near lane one' then continues with what he saw, a plane banking slightly and so low it was close to the light poles.
(paraphrasing the next exchange)
Next question, is "it was a jet plane?? Yes it was a commercial plane.
Next question, "was there another plane?" "Yes there were two planes in the area"

[A W Smith]

I need to ask, Caustic Logic, is that a transcript produced by the CIT?

What does he mean by
“Right. Around the lane one area.."? Aldo asked him "you saw it over the south parking lot?” perhaps he misheard the question and understood he was being asked "you were at the south parking lot?"

What other way can this be looked at?

Could he have seen Flight 77 at any point along its path banking in towards the Pentagon, "just above the light poles"?

So, here's a senario, take or discard it;
He steps away from the booth and away from the side of the Pentagon and sees AA flt 77 banking in towards the Pentagon. If so then it had to be on a path south of the Citgo. He can see it until it disappears around the corner of the Pentagon, looks up to see if it went over the building and sees the C-130, another twin engine aircraft grey in color (not much different than silver). He obviously never says that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. He has also not said that a plane approached the Pentagon then flew over it and banked to the south. He claims a second plane and given that no one puts a second plane next to the plane that approached the Pentagon low and fast there would be no confusing one with the other.
He simply cannot say that a plane flew over and banked away to the north given that the building would block that view.


He is then interviewed by Aldo, says where he was and starts to say what he saw. Aldo asks about if the plane was over the south parking lot. This is a ridiculous question to someone who saw the plane approach amnd instead he hears/understands that Aldo has again asked where he was when he saw this he answers using a different way to identify hwre he was, 'near lane one' then continues with what he saw, a plane banking slightly and so low it was close to the light poles.
(paraphrasing the next exchange)
Next question, is "it was a jet plane?? Yes it was a commercial plane.
Next question, "was there another plane?" "Yes there were two planes in the area"


Here is the missing segment of the air America show with Craigs 60 second phone call from that witness

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=FLX02ALB

[Caustic Logic]

Don't be silly.....

It would have hit him.

Very funny.

the distance between that booth and the edge of that dock is about maybe only seven steps away from there

If this is the edge of the loading dock lot, I'd estimate he''s no more than 22 feet tall.

[Caustic Logic]

I need to ask, Caustic Logic, is that a transcript produced by the CIT?

That's my own, from the audio on the show. I only clipped parts I didn't feel worth typing.

What does he mean by
“Right. Around the lane one area.."? Aldo asked him "you saw it over the south parking lot?” perhaps he misheard the question and understood he was being asked "you were at the south parking lot?"

He seems to be saying over. Perspective, remember, maybe it wasn't but it looked that way. NEIT 405, from a similar position:
Walking on that elevated area that's right outside the door. It's actually on the second floor level. And I turned and glanced off to my right and that's when I saw the airplane that flew into the Pentagon and from that point forward there's, was my observation of what happened on September 11th. As I looked over to the right,I saw a plane coming over 395 and very, very low. Essentially coming into eye level as it flew across 395 and come across the end of the south parking off to my right as I went through that door.
And then it hit. This is one possibility for what he saw, but only BEFORE the crash/explosion. That's a problem, but i'm leaning towards Gravy's int. that he saw 77 on the approach and some mix-up happened with the percieved timeline. John Farmer is working out a different hypothesis that could also pan out, but no details yet.
Lane 1 BTW I did not know until Boone 870 dropped me this:
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/flyover_witness_lane_1.jpg
That was my guess, it fits the other witness, and it's a big problem for a plane that just passed over the Pentagon east-bound.

What other way can this be looked at?
There really was a second plane? Or the above (if we rearrange the timeline)? C-130 as you mentioned is possible but doesn't fit too well. I'm not sure of anything except that the direct reading of it as the flyover makes no sense.

Oh, did I mention that we have an ID almost for certain? Farmer read the transcript and went 'ding!' DPS officer Roosevelt Roberts. Like Brooks and Lagasse, he was interviewed by the LoC in 2001 (Nov 30), interview available here:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/S?ammem/afc911bib:@filreq(@field(TITLE+@od1(Interview+with +Roosevelt+Roberts+Jr+,+Waldorf,+Maryland,+Novembe r+30,+2001))+@field(RESOURCETYPE+@od1(sound_record ing)))
The interview is a bit confusing as to timeline (he saw the plane at 9:11 am?), as is his new interview, but he places a plane over the south lot, apparently after the explosion (audio gap leaves it a bit unclear - did the plane hit the building on TV?). However, the LoC site says Roberts "talks about watching the plane before impact." I'll have a more detailed analysys later. So anyone, we have that to check against.

[jaydeehess]

Boone sent the pic of the lot to me as well.
I would have expected that the path marked '1' would be refered to as 'row 1' and that lanes would run parallel to them but that would be only my speculation. It would stand to reason that if they are marked on the map of the parking lot then the witness would refer to those numbers and that he is saying that the plane was over the extreme west end of the south lot. That is consistent with the accepted flight path though it puts the plane's path further south than that. It most certainly would not put the plane north of the Citgo station nor would it be possible in any way shape or form for a plane to be over the Citgo on a heading that all witnesses would believe would take it to the Pentagon impact point (Lagasse, Brooks, Turcois, Boger etc.) AND then bank over the Pentagon and be over that portion of the south parking lot we believe is "lane one". It would be turning , what, about 120 degrees within 4 seconds (max) at several hundred MPH. That is a turn radius of about 420 feet and a g acelleration of about 14 g's.

Hmmm, that sounds low. I was using 300 MPH and turning 120 degrees in 4 seconds perhaps someone can do that math as well.

I got the radius by 4 seconds at 440 f/s giving travel distance of 1760 feet which covered 2/3'rds of the diameter of turn which led me to 420 foot radius.

With a 420 foot radius and a tangential velocity of 440 f/s I got a centrepetal acelleration of 460 f/s/s which divided by 32 f/s/s makes it 14 times the accelleration due to gravity.

[Reheat]

......It most certainly would not put the plane north of the Citgo station nor would it be possible in any way shape or form for a plane to be over the Citgo on a heading that all witnesses would believe would take it to the Pentagon impact point (Lagasse, Brooks, Turcois, Boger etc.) AND then bank over the Pentagon and be over that portion of the south parking lot we believe is "lane one". It would be turning , what, about 120 degrees within 4 seconds (max) at several hundred MPH. That is a turn radius of about 420 feet and a g acelleration of about 14 g's.

Hmmm, that sounds low. I was using 300 MPH and turning 120 degrees in 4 seconds perhaps someone can do that math as well.

I got the radius by 4 seconds at 440 f/s giving travel distance of 1760 feet which covered 2/3'rds of the diameter of turn which led me to 420 foot radius.

With a 420 foot radius and a tangential velocity of 440 f/s I got a centrepetal acelleration of 460 f/s/s which divided by 32 f/s/s makes it 14 times the accelleration due to gravity.

You're off a little bit on this one. First of all enough bank at 300 KIAS to achieve 30 degrees per second turn rate is impossible because of stall speed.

If a 420' turn radius is adequate to make that turn (I haven't measured the requirement) it would take over 87 degrees of bank and 19 + G's. Again, impossible because the stall speed increases to 603 KIAS!

With an increase in speed both the bank and G requirements are going to increase significantly. I don't believe any further calculation is needed!

[bje]

TC329, if you are so certain of CIT's claim of a flyover, then you and CIT must have interviewed the hundreds of eyewitnesses who were inside the Pentagon in the minutes, hours, and days after the event, saw the wreckage, recovered the wreckage, and saw or took part in the sorting of the wreckage on the lawn of the Pentagon, in the open, under an open tent, correct?

Only one problem, TC. Every truther since Dick Eastman in 2002 has either refused to do those interviews, refused to reveal the statements if they did the interviews, or refused to answer the question.

You can include Creg Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and Ray Balsamo in that list, all of those who have refused to provide any statements from these hundreds of eyewitnesses. None of them can even give a reason why those statements are not important.

Now it's your turn for the record, TC329. What wreckage did those hundreds of people see and recover from inside the Pentagon? These statements are crucial to CIT's claim of a flyover.

If you do not know the answer, or you do not think those statements are important, please have the courtesy of telling us why. Here is your chance to do what every other 9/11 Truther has been unable to do since the question was first posed in 2002.


Hmmmm.... TC329's silence is deafening.

Why am I not surprised?

[jaydeehess]

You're off a little bit on this one. First of all enough bank at 300 KIAS to achieve 30 degrees per second turn rate is impossible because of stall speed.

If a 420' turn radius is adequate to make that turn (I haven't measured the requirement) it would take over 87 degrees of bank and 19 + G's. Again, impossible because the stall speed increases to 603 KIAS!

With an increase in speed both the bank and G requirements are going to increase significantly. I don't believe any further calculation is needed!

In my defense I was only concerned with the g number and had been ignoring bank angle which I just assumed would be ridicilous. I also note that you used KIAS and I used MPH which would account for the difference in our calcs of g's.

At any rate we are again confronted with a flight path that is simply untenable which means that either
-the witness is incorrect
OR
-the CIT are badly misinterpreting the witness's statements.

The CIT once again prove that they are horrible interviewers. The witness is making a statement that if interpreted the way the CIT want to then it results in a completely untenable flight path yet they did not have the witness describe it better.
The most direct question would have been; "The plane was near the lamp posts when it was approaching the Pentagon?"
Answer ; "Yes"
then the next question would be;
"Is that also when it was over the south parking lot?
Answer: "Yes"

Now this witness is a making a case for the accepted flightpath and will become a government shill.

If the answer to either question is "No" then he is indeed a CIT treasure and despite the fact that he is in the employ of the US Armed Forces and he is a brave soul fighting for truth. OTOH we come up against the physical impossibility that nags at the CIT constantly.

Once again I feel that the CIT needs to reach into the woo-bag and declare that the craft was using alien technology and thus capable of the manouvers they wish (oh how they wish) it to have performed. The phrase to remember is; " You don't know what black ops technology they really have!".

<< Phil Collins sings, "Its Magic, magic, magic", in the background>>

[16.5]

Hmmmm.... TC329's silence is deafening.

Why am I not surprised?

Given that he was kicked out of the CIT I expect him to come back and point out the obvious:

1. CIT improperly coached and fed its NOC witnesses the wrong flight path.

2. CIT deliberately lies when they say their witnesses corroborate each other (their new Arlington witnesses and Morin being only the most extreme example).

3. CIT deliberately hides the fact that all of its witnesses are consistent on one point: flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

4. CIT has falsely advised its witnesses that people on the internet are calling them liars, when in fact the only ones doing so are the CIT themselves (See point 3).

Come on DOM! Give us the inside scoop! We know that Lyte and Waldo pulled this fantasy out of their ass. Just confirm that they know.

[pomeroo]

For months, the frauds and fools of the CIT have been hammered over their inability to produce witnesses to their preposterous "flyover." They had no choice but to invent one or two.

Is it really more complicated than this?

[Caustic Logic]

For months, the frauds and fools of the CIT have been hammered over their inability to produce witnesses to their preposterous "flyover." They had no choice but to invent one or two.

Is it really more complicated than this?

Probably a bit so, but that's clearly about it... well, something's changed. Desparation to keep afloat? Or is this hari-kiri [sp] we're seeing here, where they run it right into the ground and see how many still follow them? I always guessed the punch-line would be something like this. They finally produce the long-awaited southpath witness disproving the others who prove flyover, and calling him the long-awaited flyover witness. Absolute inversion.

Jaydee and Reheat - thanks for the math. My previous 'calculations' for that turn were damn impossible for about any plane at any speed. Will CIT even bother now saying 'that's a straw man! maybe it WAS a Sopwith Camel or a special helicopter painted to look like a white/silver decoy airliner, and flying 55 mph, we don't know yet...'

[jaydeehess]

Oops, I believe that it was Sting who sang the song I mention above.

[Reheat]

In my defense I was only concerned with the g number and had been ignoring bank angle which I just assumed would be ridicilous. I also note that you used KIAS and I used MPH which would account for the difference in our calcs of g's.

You are correct that the G difference is between MPH and Knots. Sorry, I automatically think in knots with anything connected to aviation and have to convert to MPH. I was not trying to insult you or show you up at all, but merely intended to post accurate results. You actually made me calculate it as I previously knew it was impossible and hadn't bothered. You add immensely to these discussions and I truly appreciate it.

You're 300 MPH is: ~86 degrees of bank, ~14.2 G's, ~427' turn radius, but again the stall speed prevents it as it increases to 603 MPH.

It is truly frustrating having to witness frauds, charlatans and liars continue to perpetuate this crap when it is proven to have been impossible using standard aeronautical physics and simple math. This whole endeavor is wasted bandwidth, wasted words, and wasted time. There really ought to be some kind of legal procedure to prevent the jerks from continuing this. I suppose we need to revert to the old cliche that "one can't legislate against stupidity".

[A W Smith]

Another south parking lot flight77 witness

http://www.uscg.mil/History/WEBORALHISTORY/911_RADM_J_Hathaway.html


RADM Hathaway: Some of the stories that, again, of some of the survivors: one of the Navy 0-6s that works for me was just returning to the Pentagon. He was walking through South Parking and the airliner literally flew right over him. All he remembers is dropping flat on his stomach in the parking lot and he said that as the airliner flew into the building it was eerily quiet. He said he hardly remembers hearing the impact of the airliner flying into the Pentagon itself, but he heard the airliner coming. He looked up and said it was like the whole sky was filled with the plane and he thought it was coming right down on top of him.

[TC329]

Hey Dom, can I see transcripts of these flyover witness testimonies?


Help Yourself (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/S?ammem/afc911bib:@filreq(@field(TITLE+@od1(Interview+with +Roosevelt+Roberts+Jr+,+Waldorf,+Maryland,+Novembe r+30,+2001))+@field(RESOURCETYPE+@od1(sound_record ing))))

Government ops already disclosed his identity.

[Reheat]

Help Yourself (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/S?ammem/afc911bib:@filreq(@field(TITLE+@od1(Interview+with +Roosevelt+Roberts+Jr+,+Waldorf,+Maryland,+Novembe r+30,+2001))+@field(RESOURCETYPE+@od1(sound_record ing))))

Government ops already disclosed his identity.

Go any math today?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1840746c1f10359a41.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7720)

[TC329]

flyover witness > super anonymous armchair research authoritive


hit the streets go find your hundreds of witnesses you claim exist supporting your fantasy and ask them about it in front of a camera you coward............

[stateofgrace]

flyover witness > super anonymous armchair research authoritive


hit the streets go find your hundreds of witnesses you claim exist supporting your fantasy and ask them about it in front of a camera you coward............

I checked the BBC this morning, your ground breaking discovery wasn't there, where was it?

[bje]

flyover witness > super anonymous armchair research authoritive


hit the streets go find your hundreds of witnesses you claim exist supporting your fantasy and ask them about it in front of a camera you coward............

See my posts #443 and #471.

Why should anyone do your job for you? CIT= Citizen's Investigation Team, no?

You're the ones that desperately want to do an investigation. You have to interview all of the witnesses IF you are after evidence and the truth. WE have questions on the table concerning witnesses and the evidence. Answer them.

We don't have to do one single thing. We have nothing to prove. Capiche?

[Reheat]

flyover witness > super anonymous armchair research authoritive


hit the streets go find your hundreds of witnesses you claim exist supporting your fantasy and ask them about it in front of a camera you coward............

I don't need to prove anything regarding witnesses except that CIT's conclusions drawn from their witnesses is WRONG. I have and can conclusively prove that again and again.

The evidence is in and YOU and CIT have lost.....

The sooner you abandon this epic failure the happier life you'll have. Assuming, of course, that's what you want as opposed to this agenda driven ignorant fantasy.

[1337m4n]

As I hang up the phone...the plane hit the building. It all came at the same time, watching the TV, it was like it was almost timed for preciseness. So, uh, as I hung up the phone and I ran to the center of the dock and I looked up...and I saw another plane flying around the south parking lot...

This is not a "flyover" witness.

[1337m4n]

flyover witness > super anonymous armchair research authoritive


Most of the time on this forum the term "ad hominem" is used incorrectly, but this here is an example of a true, genuine, ad hominem logical fallacy. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html) If you cannot refute Reheat's argument, it matters not whether he is "anonymous"--the argument stands on its own merits.

[Bobert]

I really dont mean this to sound like a smartmouth but Dom I thought you were kicked out of the CIT so why are even posting answering for them??
If you are going to speak for them are you saying that you are again CIT?
Its a fair question becauas if Craig or Aldo see you posting here and you provide information that they disagree with they can just blow it off
"well Dom is not part of CIT anyway, he doesnt speak for us".

[16.5]

flyover witness > super anonymous armchair research authoritive

hit the streets go find your hundreds of witnesses you claim exist supporting your fantasy and ask them about it in front of a camera you coward............

Dom, now that you were kicked out of the CIT we can let you in on a little secret: We've been having what you might call a little fun with the CIT boys.

"C'mon Boys, show us your flight path." etc. We figured that maybe they'd cobble something together, but they can't. It is pretty clear they are not bright enough (we know they are not educated enough) to do the math required to come up with a flight path.

All the time there is this 16,000 pound elephant sitting in the room: all the CIT's witnesses say the plane they saw hit the Pentagon!

Damn, CIT falsely told one of the witnesses that people were calling him a liar, and what was his response (I'm paraphrasing): "I don't care what they say. I know what I saw. Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon."

They fooled a couple of dimwits over at the new Loose Change board (pretty funny considering how the old board gave them the bum's rush!) but c'mon, some half wit "MC" and a child with a high squeaky manic voice? The CIT is a complete joke. Rejoice that you got out just in time. Feels good not to have to carry those goofs' water over here anymore, don't it?

[Brainache]

Dom, now that you were kicked out of the CIT we can let you in on a little secret: We've been having what you might call a little fun with the CIT boys.

"C'mon Boys, show us your flight path." etc. We figured that maybe they'd cobble something together, but they can't. It is pretty clear they are not bright enough (we know they are not educated enough) to do the math required to come up with a flight path.

All the time there is this 16,000 pound elephant sitting in the room: all the CIT's witnesses say the plane they saw hit the Pentagon!

Damn, CIT falsely told one of the witnesses that people were calling him a liar, and what was his response (I'm paraphrasing): "I don't care what they say. I know what I saw. Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon."

They fooled a couple of dimwits over at the new Loose Change board (pretty funny considering how the old board gave them the bum's rush!) but c'mon, some half wit "MC" and a child with a high squeaky manic voice? The CIT is a complete joke. Rejoice that you got out just in time. Feels good not to have to carry those goofs' water over here anymore, don't it?

Yeah, if I were you Dom, I'd be exCITed!



Sorry. Don't you hate bad puns?

[TC329]

This is not a "flyover" witness.


oh!

so which silver commercial airliner do you propose was flying away from the Pentagon after aa77 allegedly impacted it??

[bje]

oh!

so which silver commercial airliner do you propose was flying away from the Pentagon after aa77 allegedly impacted it??

You, Ranke, Marquis, and Balsamo have all refused to tell us.

We're still waiting.

[applecorped]

oh!

so which silver commercial airliner do you propose was flying away from the Pentagon after aa77 allegedly impacted it??

Some people prefer illusion over despair. It would be difficult and embarrassing at this point to admit that one has been so incredibly wrong. It is a hard step to take but the alternative is even more worrisome. You can take your lumps, admit you were wrong and acquire a modicum of respect for owning up or you can continue the frustrating, irrational descent into complete irrelevance. Choose wisely.

[Alferd_Packer]

I'll tell you something. If you EVER get a legitimate News Source to support your loony crap, I will reveal my identity and DESTROY your outlandish dishonest, delusional theories once and for all.


Have you ever noticed how Clark Kent always dissapears just about the time Reheat shows up? ;) :D

[Alferd_Packer]

yeah "Bugs Bunny" physics........

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/woman_wtc.jpg

Planes did make plane shaped holes at the WTC, Ron.

I was commenting about johnnyclueless thinking people are idiots for expecting a plane to make a plane shaped hole at the pentagon as well.



So are you claiming that the outer wall of the pentagon was identical to the outer walls of the WTC towers?

[1337m4n]

oh!

so which silver commercial airliner do you propose was flying away from the Pentagon after aa77 allegedly impacted it??

That's not what I heard him say. Did I miss something? If so, what time is it on the audio recording when he says that?