The north side evidence validated to the point of redundancy

[~enigma~]

And flying a plane over top of a building in front of 1000s of people without anyone seein and causing many people to see the plane actually hit the building when it didn,t as well as planting an entire planes worth of parts and people in front of 1000s of people without anyone noticing and getting that plane and debris from some crash site to the scene within an hour and without anyone noticing, and knocking down trees and lamp posts in front of 1000s of people without any of them noticing and doing it all on a whim that someone just happens to not notice all this circus work going on in rush hour......?Not to mention how they not only planted some evidence but they planted severed body parts that were seen by most firefighters there that day as well as airplane parts throughout thwe impact area and courtyard and even OVER the other side of the pentagon. And for good measure they even planted more severed body parts AND airplane parts on the roof of the pentagon. And people wonder why I think the truth movement and in particular CIT are disgusting sub-human cretins...

[Jonnyclueless]

1000s of people saw the plane come in and none of them saw a plane fly over which would be more more visible than an impact. And the press and authorities don't take you CIT kids seriously? How can that be?!?!

[bje]

You, BJE, are lying, since this quote:

says nothing about 'refusing to interview' anyone. If you want to have a discussion instead of gaslighting everyone, please supply a source for the 'fireman' quote you referenced in the other thread.

Now you're lying too, TLB. You know CIT has presented NO statements from any of the key eyewitnesses to the wreckage.

You know that both Ranke and Marquis dismiss the physical evidence of the wreckage and would not interview any of the over 1,000 key eyewitnesses to the wreckage.

You even admitted here that in order for there to be a true investigation, those key eyewitnesses would have to be interviewed.

Let's stop the lying, TLB, from you, TC329, CIT, and all the other the other no-planers.

[~enigma~]

You even admitted here that in order for there to be a true investigation, those key eyewitnesses would have to be interviewed.
What is the use to interview witness to the wreckage and body parts when that investigation will say that flight 77 hit the pentagon? Seems totally unnecessary and only needed to massage the egos of a few idiot truthers.

[beachnut]

if money can't be tracked does that mean the tracker knows where it is?
Rummy wants to know, to the penny, where, when, and how all the money was spent.

So please, take all the money that went though your hands for the last 5 years, and tell me to the penny, the time, the purchase, the reason, the result, the category, etc. you did with all your money now!

Oops, you lost all your money too. You have to be the worst researcher in the whole world.

Tiny aircraft buzzing suv, flying under wires, and to you it is reality of some super secret CT. No 93, no 77, no real ideas. Cool, what do you do to make reality melt away? What drug is it that makes you irrational?

What does the Pentagon accounting problems have to do with 9/11? Do you know where the money really comes from? You actually think one office in the Pentagon was wiped to cover-up Rummy's dissatisfaction with his accounting staff?

The real motive would be to have, 77 hit Rummy's office so the guys with the money would not be bothered with the hothead wanting to know what the our money was doing! You need help with your fantasy, your ideas are pure armature and real stupid.

Does HBO have real sex series, they could use you and CIT as a real stupid series. I better trade mark that now.

[TheLoneBedouin]

Now you're lying too, TLB. You know CIT has presented NO statements from any of the key eyewitnesses to the wreckage.
No, I don't know that- I've asked you to provide a source for your "fireman" reference in the other thread. Furthermore, even if CIT presented no statements from first responders, it does not follow that they 'refuse to interview them'.
You know that both Ranke and Marquis dismiss the physical evidence of the wreckage
Wrong. The facade damage is what caused the interest in the Pentagon in the first place and the wreckage has not been proven to come from AA77.
and would not interview any of the over 1,000 key eyewitnesses to the wreckage.
Wrong. You've yet to post a quote from CIT stating their refusal to interview eyewitnesses to the wreckage.
Since you have no evidence for refusal, the question is whether CIT has interviewed said witnesses. In order for me to answer that question you're going to have to give me a source for that fireman quote from the other thread.

[WildCat]

No, I don't know that- I've asked you to provide a source for your "fireman" reference in the other thread. Furthermore, even if CIT presented no statements from first responders, it does not follow that they 'refuse to interview them'.
Of course they refuse to interview them! A fireman who catches on to the fact that the CIT are calling them all liars who are covering up the crime of the century might not be able to resist the urge to smack the smirk off the faces of the CIT liars.

And to recap: not a single one of the people interviewed by CIT think there was a flyover, and all of them say Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

[applecorped]

No, I don't know that- I've asked you to provide a source for your "fireman" reference in the other thread. Furthermore, even if CIT presented no statements from first responders, it does not follow that they 'refuse to interview them'.

Wrong. The facade damage is what caused the interest in the Pentagon in the first place and the wreckage has not been proven to come from AA77.

Wrong. You've yet to post a quote from CIT stating their refusal to interview eyewitnesses to the wreckage.
Since you have no evidence for refusal, the question is whether CIT has interviewed said witnesses. In order for me to answer that question you're going to have to give me a source for that fireman quote from the other thread.

So there was wreckage there?

[pomeroo]

And this changes things how? Those in lifeboats were scrambling to save their families or at least asking about the fate of their families. You had to fight to even get in a lifeboat and even if you did, some people were thrown overboard!

Unless they were saved by the people in the lifeboats.


Stop babbling. There were hundreds of survivors. Some claimed that the ship went straight down. Others, correctly, remembered it breaking in half. Were the ones whose memories proved faulty "liars"? Did they prove that the ship didn't sink.

SPEAK UP!


Then you need to retake "Analogy 101" since your analogy is idiotic.


The analogy is apt.



Wrong.


Nope.



Wrong- the number is unknown but no less than one.


Stop lying. The number is exactly zero. When the moronic frauds of the CIT first fabricated their insane fantasy, the number of flyover witnesses quickly rose to zero and has stayed there as the evidence continues not to pour in.



Absolutely wrong. Did you do your own investigation? Did you go to Arlington, Pomeroo? If not, will you admit you're talking out of your ass (rhetorical question).


Sorry, you've been caught lying again.



Minimize the witnesses as much as you want- you don't change the fact that all those in a position to see, saw the NOC flightpath. You like to claim that CIT manipulated the witnesses- but post no evidence. You haven't even watched the video you're criticizing, but continue to call yourself a 'rationalist'. Everyone's imperfect, but it's fascinating from a psychological point of view to see someone who is completely incapable of seeing their own hypocrisy.


The low-IQ cretins of the CIT define "in a position to see" as "being susceptible to verbal coercion." We have no idea what the tiny handful of cherry-picked witnesses actually think of the plane's flight path. What we KNOW is that they insist the plane crashed into the Pentagon. When you liars are prepared to interview one of your witnesses in the presence of a rationalist, let us know.

[pomeroo]

You should not believe any of it because it is all speculation, just as your speculation about specific aspects of planning shouldn't be believed.


Again, if they needed to destroy targets that could only be destroyed at a precise angle. Another reason could be to add verisimilitude to the psy-op by faking interaction with physical objects (ie the light poles).

Indeed- thus the sequestering of the 911 calls and the introduction of the second plane story.

No that section of road was controlled immediately after the explosion by the FBI.

Indeed that's possible. Ever heard of Sibel Edmonds?
It is, however, not necessary. "Massive" conspiracies have existed for years- e.g. the Manhattan Project, MKULTRA, Operation Gladio, CIA operations in Guatemala, Iran, Cuba, Indochina, etc. People in such conspiracies choose not to speak in order to avoid punishment (ie they know they have committed a crime and simply don't want any possible punishment), they believe what they are doing is 'right' or for the good of humanity/ country, etc.

Not in our current society. You may want to read about 'conspiratorial' conditions of Soviet Russia and/or Communist Poland. Further resources at:
ponerology.com (http://www.ponerology.com).



Hey, liar, what has the oh-so-chatty Sibel Edmonds ever said that is remotely helpful to your deranged fantasy?

[pomeroo]

So.

Light poles taken down at night, and no one noticed them.

Light poles. Along a road. At night.

LIGHT poles. Road. Night.

LIGHT POLE.

Let's try it larger, and in red: LIGHT POLE

Please tell me I don't have to explain farther?


No, he still doesn't get it, and if you explained it until you were blue in the face, he would never get it.

[pomeroo]

I KNOW ITS HARD BUT CAN YOU GUYS PLEASE QUIT RECITING THAT LIE? (http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82)



Sorry, but the dullwitted Pentaconmen are the liars. There are hundreds of eyewitnesses to the crash of Flight 77. About 100 of them are on record.

Oh, by the way, did those Titanic survivors who insisted the ship went straight down "lie"? Did they prove that the ship didn't sink? Explain your answer.

You can run, but you can't hide.

[pomeroo]

THIS IS NOT A YOUTUBE LINK THAT TAKES YOU TO A NEWS REPORT WHERE RUMMY DOESN'T ANNOUNCE THAT TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS ARE MISSING...... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU)


You're right. It's merely a mindless waste of space.

Absolutely nobody thinks $2.3 trillion is "missing." Nobody ever said it was.

[Mangoose]

The north side evidence is not a theory. It is what all the witnesses unanimously report.


All witnesses who reported seeing the plane hit light poles (e.g. D. S. Khavkin, Afework Hagos, Rodney Washington, Steve Riskus, Father McGraw, Noel Sepulveda, Mark Bright, Wanda Ramey, etc.) automatically do not report a "north side" approach. Among the witnesses who gave their accounts less than a year after 9/11:

Albert Hemphill at the Navy Annex was at a window facing the Pentagon and he wrote on 9/12/2001: "As I stood there, I instinctively ducked at the extremely loud roar and whine of a jet engine spooling up. Immediately, the large silver cylinder of an aircraft appeared in my window, coming over my right shoulder as I faced the Westside of the Pentagon directly towards the heliport". Describing seeing the plane coming to his right, "as if it had been following Columbia Pike", Hemphill definitely puts the plane on a "south side" approach.

Terry Morin (writing in Sept. 2001), also at the Navy Annex but just outside the building ("approximately 10 steps out from between Wings 4 and 5", approaching the security check-in building), clearly described the plane on a "south side" approach in his account written in Sept. 2001, despite CIT's attempts to twist his account into a "north side" approach story. First he described the flight path as "parallel the outer edge of the FOB", which approximates roughly how a "south side" approach would have looked from his position; a "north side" approach would have put the plane over the FOB itself as it passed him. Moreover he gave a detailed description of the plane's journey once it passed the building and he kept his eyes on the plane until "I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees" began to block his view except for the tail. All of this viewing would have been utterly impossible with a "north side" approach, unless Morin had x-ray vision or the Navy Annex had been made of glass (remember, the plane could not have been very high if it was blocked by trees). It is amazing that anyone could read Morin's account and think that his description of the plane's flight to the building could at all be construed as supporting a "north side" path. Nitpicking over whether Morin could still barely see the plane in the last instant before it crashed into the building, or whether the flight path was really exactly "parallel", also does not turn Morin into a "north side" witness.

Penny Elgas (writing in Sept. 2002), after exiting I-395 to the Pentagon, was approaching the Pentagon when "I heard a rumble, looked out my driver's side window and realized that I was looking at the nose of an airplane coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there -- very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station that I never know was there." On Rt. 27 Elgas sees the plane headed straight at her just to the side of the Citgo station, and that would have been the "south side" of the station if the plane just immediately prior to this had been "over the road (Columbia Pike)" just as she said it was. She also described seeing the plane crash directly into the building.

Steve Riskus on 3/11/02 was asked to give his location on an aerial map where he saw the plane from and where on Rt. 27 he saw the plane fly over. He said "The plane looked like it was coming in about where you have the 'MAX APPROACH' on the picture...I was at about where the 'E' in 'ANGLE OF CAMERA' is written when the plane hit." The labeling on the photo was inaccurate since the actual angle of the plane was greater than the "MAX APPROACH" that Riskus was given to choose, but by saying that the plane was "about where" the "MAX APPROACH" was given, Riskus placed the plane in the vicinity of the light poles. If the lines were extended, "MIN APPROACH" would have been a "north side" approach but Riskus rejected it over an approach much more to the south.

Mary Ann Owens (who submitted her account to the AP on 9/11/01 at 6:38pm EDT), heading northbound in Rt. 27 and stuck in traffic near the Pentagon heard the sound of engines and "I looked left to see a large plane barely clear the I-395 overpass. Instantly I knew what was happening, and I involuntarily ducked as the plane passed perhaps 50 to 75 feet above the roof of my car at great speed." The plane was close enough for the sound of its engines to get Owens to look at it and she placed the plane as just barely higher than the I-395 overpass that it "barely" cleared. This puts the plane on a "south side" approach, very close to the I-395 overpass. When the plane was approaching the "south side" of the Citgo, its wing would have been about 200 feet or less away from the outermost southbound lanes of I-395 and could well have looked like it was coming from I-395 to the left of the Navy Annex. A "north side" approach would not have been anywhere near I-395.

Rick M. wrote the following witness account on 9/16/2001: "We stopped at a Citgo station that we found out was military personal only, but my daughter got them to let us pump $5 worth of gas. We left the station to get back on 395 north, but we missed the on ramp, so we drove back around the loop to try again. When we rounded the corner to head back to the highway we heard a sound like a missile and the plane flew in front of us by about 200 ft at ground level. I turned my head to the right and saw it crash into the Pentagon about 200 yards away." I'm a little unclear on this one, as I'm not entirely sure of his location, but the "loop" must refer to one of the cloverleaf loops around Route 27, and I think he was on the one around lamp post #3 if he had to look to the RIGHT to the Pentagon impact site. He describes the plane directly "in front of" him after he rounded the corner of the loop to head back to the highway, and that would exactly put the plane over Route 27 in the vicinity of the lamp poles about 200 feet or less in front of him.

[pomeroo]

you're right they're not missing they can't be tracked.


mohammad atta is not dead hes just not alive. :boggled:


Do you get the idea that this is Fetzer's lunatic lie? And he has given up on it. Do you understand that we have READ Rumsfeld's speech. How can you liars hope to con anybody when the refutation of your falsehood is so readily available?
NO MONEY IS "MISSING"! GET IT?

[pomeroo]

if money can't be tracked does that mean the tracker knows where it is?


Everybody involved understands that the money has been spent. Rumsfeld's complaint was that the antiquated data storage systems made keeping track of the transactions difficult. If you had a triple-digit IQ, I would suggest reading Rumsfeld's speech. You don't, and I won't bother.


About those survivors of the Titanic--did the ones who insisted that the ship went straight down prove that it didn't sink at all? Were they "lying"? Explain your answer.

[Drudgewire]

How can you liars hope to con anybody when the refutation of your falsehood is so readily available?


I'm not one to blame TV or video games or music for societal ills, but I sometimes wonder if the twoof movement can be linked to a generation of TV shows which have glorified defense attorneys. That is to say, it isn't so much about the facts but whether someone can convince others of their argument in spite of them.

Of course, if that IS the case the twoofers missed the step about making a convincing argument in leiu of facts. :p

[Bobert]

Yet another CIT thread. These frauds are so very desperate for any attention that they can get. Hardly ANYONE over at LCF is paying ANY attention to them and the same over at ATS.
TLB,
THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS is when and where you will take this evidence?
EVERYTHING else that you type is just BLAH BLAH BLAH until you man up and walk your EVIDENCE to a court.
Heck Dr. Judy Woods did it!!!!
Why cant you?
Or the CIT?
All this attention seeking behavior could be better spent getting the evidence to the proper authorities.

[pomeroo]

obviously the sarcasm in the link posted was neyond your grasp as it was a youtube link to where rummy admits they can't track trillions of dollars of taxpayer money which means those trillions of dollars are 'missing' because they cannot be account for.

eat paint chips as a kid?


Again and again I ask, why is making a total horse's ass of yourself preferable to admitting defeat. You have been caught lying. Nothing on earth can change that fact. No money is "missing" from the Pentagon. Nobody thinks any money is missing.

This concept has been explained to you repeatedly. It is shocking that any human can be too obtuse to grasp it:

If I purchase an item, I have spent money. If I lose or throw away the receipt, I can't track the purchase.

I AM NOT "MISSING" MONEY BECAUSE I KNOW THAT I SPENT IT, EVEN THOUGH I MIGHT NOT REMEMBER WHAT I SPENT IT ON.

THE PENTAGON IS NOT "MISSING" ANY MONEY.

[Bobert]

OMG!!!!!
(first shot of Craig and Aldo in their new video)
Craig and Aldo on a couch with Craig's shirt almost completely unbottoned!?!?!
Is some sort of XXX rated movie?!
Looks like something may be going "North" on that couch!

[robeeb]

Well, this has been an exercise in futility. And an exercise in stupidity on my part for not only wasting my time trying to have some form of calm, rational discussion with truthers, but also for thinking they would ever answer a single question. I'm done.

[HawksFan]

I was watching the national news and I was sure I was going to see arrests of Bush admin members left and right. I mean with the sort of evidence that the Clouseau Investigation Team has in their hands the lid has to be blowing off this thing, right?

Right?!?!?

Alas, it didn't even blow the foam off my beer. Oh well. Maybe the next release. Or the one after that. Or the one after that. Or the one after...

[LashL]

I was watching the national news and I was sure I was going to see arrests of Bush admin members left and right. I mean with the sort of evidence that the Clouseau Investigation Team has in their hands the lid has to be blowing off this thing, right?

Right?!?!?

Alas, it didn't even blow the foam off my beer. Oh well. Maybe the next release. Or the one after that. Or the one after that. Or the one after...


Well, let's see. Searching Google News for "Citizen Investigation Team" yields the following result:

Your search - "Citizen Investigation Team" - did not match any documents.


Searching for "Craig Ranke" yields the following result:

Your search - "Craig Ranke" - did not match any documents.


Searching for "Aldo Marquis" yields the following result:

Your search - "Aldo Marquis" - did not match any documents.


I'm shocked, I tells ya', shocked!

[bje]

No, I don't know that-

How could you not know it? What is the purpose of this thread you started other than to defend CIT from having to deal with ALL of the evidence? Do you remember when you agreed with me, TLB?:

bje: Getting back to the point, I will count your responses as agreeing with me that no evidence should ever be excluded from being investigated nor should any credible eyewitness be ignored and whose account would be excluded. Is that an accurate representation of your position?

tlb: Sure, why didn't you say that in the first place? What is the purpose of this thread other than to reinforce CIT's claim that no other than 13 so-called "flyover witnesses" are needed to "prove" AA77 did not hit the Pentagon.

I've asked you to provide a source for your "fireman" reference in the other thread. Furthermore, even if CIT presented no statements from first responders, it does not follow that they 'refuse to interview them'.What confuses you about Ranke's clear statement:
"But since the first responders are not relevant to the true flight path of the plane in any way whatsoever and can do nothing to help shed further light on the CLEAR and fatal anomalies in this regard it would be completely futile for us to seek out and interview the alleged "1,000's" of people..."TLB, did you forget that CIT has been denying any necessity for interviewing any of the over 1,000 key eyewitnesses to the wreckage for the two years I and others have been asking them to do?

Wrong. The facade damage is what caused the interest in the Pentagon in the first place and the wreckage has not been proven to come from AA77.TLB, tell us just how it is possible for you or CIT to know that. HOW?

Wrong. You've yet to post a quote from CIT stating their refusal to interview eyewitnesses to the wreckage.Your thread and posts here indicate there is absolutely NO reason to interview any of those more than 1,000 people, am I not correct?

Wrong. You've yet to post a quote from CIT stating their refusal to interview eyewitnesses to the wreckage.You agree with CIT that they aren't relevant, correct?

Since you have no evidence for refusal, the question is whether CIT has interviewed said witnesses. In order for me to answer that question you're going to have to give me a source for that fireman quote from the other thread. This quote?
"However we do have an interview with a fire captain who was part of the efforts who has been on 5 plane crashes in his career and doesn't believe for a second that the plane hit the building."

"But of course neither of these guys prove anything by questioning the official story nor do any of the other recovery workers prove anything by believing it."This thread is all about CIT's claim that the "flight path proves 9/11 was an inside job" and, "How much validation will it take before you accept this evidence? The north side evidence is not a theory."

Facing the fact that CIT never intended to interview any of those key eyewitnesses, are you going withdraw this thread and ask CIT to do the proper interviews, TLB?

[Mr.Herbert]

I may be mistaken, but aren't there several USA Today associates that witnessed the impact? Ranke said it was "suspicious" or somthing like that.

Ranke also dismisses the statements by Pentagon officials as they are "suspect"

[HawksFan]

Everything and everyone is suspicious unless it even remotely can be twisted into backing up their fantasy.

[TheLoneBedouin]

All witnesses who reported seeing the plane hit light poles (e.g. D. S. Khavkin, Afework Hagos, Rodney Washington, Steve Riskus, Father McGraw, Noel Sepulveda, Mark Bright, Wanda Ramey, etc.) automatically do not report a "north side" approach.
Of the above light pole witnesses, only Wanda Ramey is quoted as 'seeing' the plane hit the light poles. Another Pentagon police officer, Chad Brooks, is also quoted as 'seeing the plane hit the poles', but clarified in CIT's interview that he didn't actually see this, but saw the poles on the ground after the fact. This is why first hand, in depth interviews are important- until you can produce any that support the SOC claim, all you have is hearsay.
Albert Hemphill at the Navy Annex was at a window facing the Pentagon and he wrote on 9/12/2001: "As I stood there, I instinctively ducked at the extremely loud roar and whine of a jet engine spooling up. Immediately, the large silver cylinder of an aircraft appeared in my window, coming over my right shoulder as I faced the Westside of the Pentagon directly towards the heliport". Describing seeing the plane coming to his right, "as if it had been following Columbia Pike", Hemphill definitely puts the plane on a "south side" approach.
Hearsay. Until you can produce a recorded interview with Hemphill that contradicts his colleage Tony Morin and the ANC/Citgo witnesses, your claims are meaningless.
Terry Morin (writing in Sept. 2001), also at the Navy Annex but just outside the building ("approximately 10 steps out from between Wings 4 and 5", approaching the security check-in building), clearly described the plane on a "south side" approach in his account written in Sept. 2001, despite CIT's attempts to twist his account into a "north side" approach story. First he described the flight path as "parallel the outer edge of the FOB", which approximates roughly how a "south side" approach would have looked from his position; a "north side" approach would have put the plane over the FOB itself as it passed him. Moreover he gave a detailed description of the plane's journey once it passed the building and he kept his eyes on the plane until "I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees" began to block his view except for the tail. All of this viewing would have been utterly impossible with a "north side" approach, unless Morin had x-ray vision or the Navy Annex had been made of glass (remember, the plane could not have been very high if it was blocked by trees). It is amazing that anyone could read Morin's account and think that his description of the plane's flight to the building could at all be construed as supporting a "north side" path. Nitpicking over whether Morin could still barely see the plane in the last instant before it crashed into the building, or whether the flight path was really exactly "parallel", also does not turn Morin into a "north side" witness.
Morin is a north side witness- in Craig's interview with Morin, he places his position in between wings four and five. While he still claims the plane traveled "parallel to the annex"- its clear that he could not establish exact heading from merely seeing the belly of the plane for a few seconds while in between wings.
Penny Elgas (writing in Sept. 2002), after exiting I-395 to the Pentagon, was approaching the Pentagon when "I heard a rumble, looked out my driver's side window and realized that I was looking at the nose of an airplane coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there -- very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station that I never know was there." On Rt. 27 Elgas sees the plane headed straight at her just to the side of the Citgo station, and that would have been the "south side" of the station if the plane just immediately prior to this had been "over the road (Columbia Pike)" just as she said it was. She also described seeing the plane crash directly into the building.
Hearsay. Darius Prather says he heard the "plane came up Columbia Pike" as well, because that's what everyone was told happened. You can't even see that part of Columbia Pike from route 27! Until you have independent on-site confirmation of this detail, any quote that has been attributed to Elgas is hearsay.
Steve Riskus on 3/11/02 was asked to give his location on an aerial map where he saw the plane from and where on Rt. 27 he saw the plane fly over. He said "The plane looked like it was coming in about where you have the 'MAX APPROACH' on the picture...I was at about where the 'E' in 'ANGLE OF CAMERA' is written when the plane hit." The labeling on the photo was inaccurate since the actual angle of the plane was greater than the "MAX APPROACH" that Riskus was given to choose, but by saying that the plane was "about where" the "MAX APPROACH" was given, Riskus placed the plane in the vicinity of the light poles. If the lines were extended, "MIN APPROACH" would have been a "north side" approach but Riskus rejected it over an approach much more to the south.
Hearsay. Record an on-site firsthand testimony if you want Riskus to be counted as a legitimate witness.
Mary Ann Owens (who submitted her account to the AP on 9/11/01 at 6:38pm EDT), heading northbound in Rt. 27 and stuck in traffic near the Pentagon heard the sound of engines and "I looked left to see a large plane barely clear the I-395 overpass. Instantly I knew what was happening, and I involuntarily ducked as the plane passed perhaps 50 to 75 feet above the roof of my car at great speed." The plane was close enough for the sound of its engines to get Owens to look at it and she placed the plane as just barely higher than the I-395 overpass that it "barely" cleared. This puts the plane on a "south side" approach, very close to the I-395 overpass. When the plane was approaching the "south side" of the Citgo, its wing would have been about 200 feet or less away from the outermost southbound lanes of I-395 and could well have looked like it was coming from I-395 to the left of the Navy Annex. A "north side" approach would not have been anywhere near I-395.
Hearsay. Get a on-site firsthand interview with Owens if you want to count her as a legitimate witness.
Rick M. wrote the following witness account on 9/16/2001: "We stopped at a Citgo station that we found out was military personal only, but my daughter got them to let us pump $5 worth of gas. We left the station to get back on 395 north, but we missed the on ramp, so we drove back around the loop to try again. When we rounded the corner to head back to the highway we heard a sound like a missile and the plane flew in front of us by about 200 ft at ground level. I turned my head to the right and saw it crash into the Pentagon about 200 yards away." I'm a little unclear on this one, as I'm not entirely sure of his location, but the "loop" must refer to one of the cloverleaf loops around Route 27, and I think he was on the one around lamp post #3 if he had to look to the RIGHT to the Pentagon impact site. He describes the plane directly "in front of" him after he rounded the corner of the loop to head back to the highway, and that would exactly put the plane over Route 27 in the vicinity of the lamp poles about 200 feet or less in front of him.
You are relying on extremely specific details of second-hand general testimony. In the case of Terry Morin's testimony, this produced paradoxes, which is why one needs independent in depth interviews of the witnesses. If you don't have this, all you have is hearsay.
Everyone has yet to address the independently confirmed evidence CIT has uncovered.
I ask again:
If the citgo witnesses were a strange coincidental fluke can you honestly continue to tell yourself that this fluke has been repeated 9 more times from different perspectives while not a single independently confirmed south side account exists?

[Grizzly Bear]

I ask again:
If the citgo witnesses were a strange coincidental fluke can you honestly continue to tell yourself that this fluke has been repeated 9 more times from different perspectives while not a single independently confirmed south side account exists?

Certainly... The analogy comparing witness reliability of those there that day and the witnesses who saw the titanic sink corroborates that inconsistencies will always be a problem for witness testimony. 13 witness out of 100+ witnesses... If the majority testified that your theory held true I might be convinced but 13 out of over a hundred... Now I don't expect witness testimony to be perfect, however, that hardly gives us a central theory to rely on...

As for the light poles, TC has ignored the question, you've likely given some kind of answer but if the plane did not hit the light pole then what did? If they were planted how did they avoid detection in the face of hundreds of motorist driving past the site at the time?

[Mangoose]

Hearsay.

Almost none of those statements were "second-hand" as you put it. With the exception of the interview with Riskus (which was posted with his permission), all of my quotes were from written statements made by witnesses shortly after the event to describe what they experienced in detail. It's not like they were quoted by reporters or anything. It's what they reported in a narrative they wrote themselves.

Morin is a north side witness- in Craig's interview with Morin, he places his position in between wings four and five. While he still claims the plane traveled "parallel to the annex"- its clear that he could not establish exact heading from merely seeing the belly of the plane for a few seconds while in between wings.


LMAO, after making such a big deal about "second-hand" testimony that really isn't second-hand, you now want us to take Craig's word for it and suppose that his characterization of what Morin told him is not hearsay?? What Craig claims Morin told him (that he saw a brief flash of the belly of the plane while in between the wings of the Navy Annex) bears no resemblance at all with what Morin wrote in September 2001. He clearly states that he was NOT between the wings of the Navy Annex and he gave lengthy, sustained observations of the plane that would have been utterly IMPOSSIBLE if he saw a brief glimpse of the plane on a "north side" path. Craig goes so far as to say in the video linked in the OP that Morin only saw a brief glimpse for just a second, then ran out and "if he saw the tail of the plane at all it had to have been as the plane was flying over," climbing up away from the Pentagon after it would have been hit. Whereas what Morin actually wrote is that he watched the plane get lower and lower after it passed the Navy Annex until some trees began to obscure the plane, and it was only then that he began to lose sight of the airframe except for the tail, and then it continued until the tail itself was only barely visible and it was after that when the explosion occurred. The twisting that you and Craig do in order to squeeze this account into a "north side" narrative is simply amazing.

[Bobert]

TLB,
Now that this video is out when will you be taking your evidence to a court?

[beachnut]

Of the above light pole witnesses, only Wanda Ramey is quoted as 'seeing' the plane hit the light poles. Another Pentagon police officer, Chad Brooks, is also quoted as 'seeing the plane hit the poles', but clarified in CIT's interview that he didn't actually see this, but saw the poles on the ground after the fact. This is why first hand, in depth interviews are important- until you can produce any that support the SOC claim, all you have is hearsay.

Hearsay. Until you can produce a recorded interview with Hemphill that contradicts his colleage Tony Morin and the ANC/Citgo witnesses, your claims are meaningless.

Morin is a north side witness- in Craig's interview with Morin, he places his position in between wings four and five. While he still claims the plane traveled "parallel to the annex"- its clear that he could not establish exact heading from merely seeing the belly of the plane for a few seconds while in between wings.

Hearsay. Darius Prather says he heard the "plane came up Columbia Pike" as well, because that's what everyone was told happened. You can't even see that part of Columbia Pike from route 27! Until you have independent on-site confirmation of this detail, any quote that has been attributed to Elgas is hearsay.

Hearsay. Record an on-site firsthand testimony if you want Riskus to be counted as a legitimate witness.

Hearsay. Get a on-site firsthand interview with Owens if you want to count her as a legitimate witness.

You are relying on extremely specific details of second-hand general testimony. In the case of Terry Morin's testimony, this produced paradoxes, which is why one needs independent in depth interviews of the witnesses. If you don't have this, all you have is hearsay.
Everyone has yet to address the independently confirmed evidence CIT has uncovered.
I ask again:
If the citgo witnesses were a strange coincidental fluke can you honestly continue to tell yourself that this fluke has been repeated 9 more times from different perspectives while not a single independently confirmed south side account exists?

CIT, Citizens Investigation Team, a group of uneducated amagure so called "investigators", make up failed conclusions and CIT is unable to understand FIRST HAND untainted testimony right after the event. CIT's 13 witnesses debunk their conclusion of stupidity and fantasy. Why do you believe their presented lies? They have real dumb ideas, why can't you figure it out?

People have posted the witnesses who saw 77 hit the Pentagon and hit the Lampposts, CIT lacks the knowledge and expertise to rational conclusion, and the make up lies.

Witnesses in their own words debunk CIT clearly and complete.

Here are some posts proving CIT wrong and I guess you support CIT, so you are double wrong. All will see you and CIT are incapable of making cogent, logical, sound conclusions on this issue.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3908950&postcount=169
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3910321&postcount=264

The biggest con on 9/11, the Pentacon CIT, team of real dumb investigators. Are part of the con?

[bje]

Hearsay. Until you can produce a recorded interview with Hemphill that contradicts his colleage Tony Morin and the ANC/Citgo witnesses, your claims are meaningless.

Let's talk about hearsay, TLB:


Craig Ranke
"...everyone knows there was very little "wreckage" found and reported."

"There was very little 'wreckage'. It was easily planted and blown from the obliterated construction trailers."

"There is no proof the remains are really from a 757 at all let alone one that hit the building."

TLB:
"But the author of the letter of appreciation was an eyewitness to the wreckage."Unless you can produce recorded interviews, those claims are meaningless, aren't they, TLB?

[jhunter1163]

I thought the thread title read "The north side evidence violated to the point of redundancy". That pretty well describes what's happened to the Truthers in this thread.

[Stellafane]

...Hearsay...

Hi TheLoneBedouin. I don't know if you're at all inclined to be receptive to what I have to say. But if you are, I wonder if it might be good to step back a moment an consider the whole picture here.

You claim that 13 witnesses say they saw the plane on the north side of the Pentagon. You apparently feel this is meaningful. I, on the other hand, believe that this claim means one thing and one thing only: that 13 people claim they saw the plane on the north side. Nothing more, nothing less. The reason I say that is because we have at least three possible conclusions to draw from this: (1) The plane was indeed on the north side, (2) the witnesses are mistaken, and (3) the witnesses are lying.

Most of us here would probably accept option #2 as the most likely, because doing so dovetails nicely with all the other things we already know about the Pentagon crash -- all the other witnesses who say they saw the plane on the south side, the debris field, the structural damage, the passenger remains, the light poles, etc. etc. If, however, you believe option #1, suddenly you have a staggering amount of explaining to do. For instance, you have to explain why the vast majority of witnesses saw the plane on the other side. Are they all mistaken or lying? If so, why was it that only this tiny minority got it right? If the plane flew over the building, what caused the damage? And how come nobody saw whatever it was come flying in? How did all the airplane pieces and passenger remains get strewn about instantly, while the Pentagon was damaged in a way perfectly consistent with an airliner crash (according to the vast majority of experts). If the plane flew over, what happened to it and the passengers? And why would anyone hatch this convoluted and seemingly insane scheme, flying an airliner over the Pentagon while crashing into it with something else, then flying the plane away without a single person noticing it?

These are the questions you have to address -- every single one of them --to make your claim at all meaningful. Until you do, then you have nothing at all.

Pomeroo mentioned the Titanic disaster as an example of how eyewitness testimony can sometimes be less than perfect. You seem to have rejected the analog (unfortunately, in my view) but here's another: Suppose I set out to discover the square root of 9. I ask 500 people. Of this group, 487 answer "3" and the remaining 13 say "4." If I were then to claim this means that the square root of 9 is 4, you'd probably think I was nuts. Because not only am I ignoring the huge majority, I'm also dismissing all the math textbooks, all the mathematicians in history, every working calculator and computer in the world, and so on -- based on what these 13 people think. And yet, what you propose by claiming that your 13 witnesses calls into question the generally accepted story of what happened on 9/11 is in my opinion every bit as implausible.

[Jonnyclueless]

Wrong. The facade damage is what caused the interest in the Pentagon in the first place and the wreckage has not been proven to come from AA77.



****PLEASE STOP LYING*****

Employees from the airline who had flown on flight 77 often were brought to the scene that day to confirm not just that it was an American Airlines plane, but it was flight 77. The irony being that one of the flight attendants who examined the debris and helped determine that it was flight 77 is a twoofer. Obviously she isn't one of the idiot twoofers who thinks flight 77 didn't hit the pentagon because she was there herself to see first hand though.

****PLEASE STOP LYING******

[Bobert]

The mind of Ranke has got to be the sickest of minds.
Here you have a grown man going on and on about rock solid, smoking gun evidence who releases YET ANOTHER video.
Now does he care about finally solving the biggest case within the US of Mass Murder?
Does he rush out to the nearest media outlet or court?
NOOOOOOOOOOO
He whines and cries over at LCF about how no one is taking him serisously
What's unfortunate is when spin and lies like Arabesque is currently spewing about us at blogger are propped up and protected at such an influential site while serious dedicated researchers like us are dismissed, marginalized, and silenced
It's a serious problem that should not be ignored.

Craig is sick on many levels.

[Confuseling]

So.

Light poles taken down at night, and no one noticed them.

Light poles. Along a road. At night.

LIGHT poles. Road. Night.

LIGHT POLE.

Let's try it larger, and in red: LIGHT POLE

Please tell me I don't have to explain farther?

They are actually quite heavy.

[pomeroo]

The question about the Titantic survivors who misremembered the most traumatic event of their lives has crushed the liars flat. They have nothing to say about an analogy that reduces their stupid, pernicious fantasy to ashes.

Instead of letting them stumble away, only to return with the same mindless idiocy, let's keep reminding them that the CIT sank with the Titanic.

[TheLoneBedouin]

Almost none of those statements were "second-hand" as you put it. With the exception of the interview with Riskus (which was posted with his permission), all of my quotes were from written statements made by witnesses shortly after the event to describe what they experienced in detail. It's not like they were quoted by reporters or anything. It's what they reported in a narrative they wrote themselves.
The statements are unconfirmed, general reports that don't deal with specific details such as exact heading, speed, etc. They are therefore hearsay.
Upon further investigation, however, it appears that even these unconfirmed accounts do not support the official story.
At approximately 9:45am I entered the old office of my friend Gary Ramos', directly adjacent to the executive director. This office, with two nice windows and a great view of the monuments, the Capitol and the Pentagon was "good digs" by any Pentagon standard. Immediately, the large silver cylinder of an aircraft appeared in my window, coming over my right shoulder as I faced the Westside of the Pentagon directly towards the heliport. The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus, seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike - an Arlington road leading to Pentagon.
Without information on Hemphill's position, the quote says little. He says he had a "great view of the capital" which means he would be more to the North side of the Annex. If the plane came over his right shoulder this would fit with "seeming to come directly over the annex". While these details need to be further delineated in an interview, his claim may support the NOC path but definitely contradicts the SOC path.
"I heard a rumble, looked out my driver's side window and realized that I was looking at the nose of an airplane coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there -- very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station that I never know was there."
Penny says she sees the plane flying over Columbia pike coming straight at her on route 27 as she turns to the left. Look on a map, this part of Columbia curves North of the Citgo gas station and intersects with route 27. Elgas is a NOC witness!
"... I saw the plane hit the building. It did not hit the ground first... It did not hit the roof first... It did dead center on the side... I was close enough (about 100 ft or so) that I could see the "American Airlines" logo on the tail as it headed towards the building... The plane looked like it was coming in about where you have the "MAX APPROACH" on that picture... I was at about where the "E" in "ANGLE OF CAMERA" is written when the plane hit... It was not completely level, but it was not going straight down, kind of like it was landing with no gear down... It knocked over a few light poles on it's way... "
This quote requires you to take "agent fescado's" word that he interviewed Riskus, but it doesn't say anything anyway. This quote says absolutely nothing about the approach of the plane, clearly Riskus would pick an angle closer to the damage path, just as Legasse deduced a 'yaw' in the last moments before the impact. It says nothing about the direction the plane came from.
"We stopped at a Citgo station that we found out was military personal only, but my daughter got them to let us pump $5 worth of gas. We left the station to get back on 395 north, but we missed the on ramp, so we drove back around the loop to try again. When we rounded the corner to head back to the highway we heard a sound like a missile and the plane flew in front of us by about 200 ft at ground level. I turned my head to the right and saw it crash into the Pentagon about 200 yards away."
First, this isn't even a witness since he doesn't list a last name and is effectively anonymous. If he is where you say he is, "in front of us" could be either NOC or SOC. We don't have enough details to determine which one he saw.
LMAO, after making such a big deal about "second-hand" testimony that really isn't second-hand, you now want us to take Craig's word for it and suppose that his characterization of what Morin told him is not hearsay??
Craig is an independent citizen investigator who asked specific questions to Morin regarding the flight path and making very specific claims in regards to his answers. You can deny what he is stating but obviously if he is misrepresenting what Morin told him that would put him in a very vulnerable position with all the people out there looking to discredit him.
Regardless the bottom line is that even without Morin and Stephens, you are looking at 11 confirmed independent first hand accounts definitively supporting the north side claim while you have provided ZERO independent confirmed first hand accounts that definitively support a south side flight path.
Furthermore you are forgetting the obvious context of the evidence you are trying (but failing) to refute.
If you hypothetically assume for the moment that the north side witnesses are correct then the undeniable implications are a military deception involving a significant amount of people who were willing to deceive.
That means that any and ALL previously published witnesses are suspect and could potentially be involved in the deception.
In light of this fact you STILL can not provide near enough testimony to put a dent in the north side evidence that has now been clearly validated to the point of redundancy. EVEN IF I accept all of your quotes as 100% valid and accurate evidence.
Have you even viewed the evidence presented in the OP?
How do you explain the detailed accounts of the ANC workers when considering the official flight path?
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/ancgif2.gif

[WildCat]

:words:
How do you explain the fact that every single one of your witnesses says that Flight 77 hit the building?

And what about that 130 mph claim of yours?

[Reheat]

Penny says she sees the plane flying over Columbia pike coming straight at her on route 27 as she turns to the left. Look on a map, this part of Columbia curves North of the Citgo gas station and intersects with route 27. Elgas is a NOC witness!

Sure she is, you freakin liar! There's two segments of Columbia Pike that run perpendicular to that highway. Here's more of what she says:

The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again -- only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring. At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building. It was here that I closed my eyes for a moment and when I looked back, the entire area was awash in thick black smoke.

[X]

First, this isn't even a witness since he doesn't list a last name and is effectively anonymous.


:jaw-dropp
Wow. Just wow.

The only approprate response is incredulity, followed by laughter.

[Corsair 115]

TLB,
Now that this video is out when will you be taking your evidence to a court?Of course not. The courts are all in on it. In fact, everyone else but them is in on it!

[Mr.Herbert]

Originally Posted by TheLoneBedouin http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3911128#post3911128)
Penny says she sees the plane flying over Columbia pike coming straight at her on route 27 as she turns to the left. Look on a map, this part of Columbia curves North of the Citgo gas station and intersects with route 27. Elgas is a NOC witness!

Sure she is, you freakin liar! There's two segments of Columbia Pike that run perpendicular to that highway. Here's the rest of what she says:

Originally Posted by Penny Elgas
The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again -- only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring. At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building. It was here that I closed my eyes for a moment and when I looked back, the entire area was awash in thick black smoke.



Mr. Lone Bedouin.... After reading Elgas's statement, all I have to say is:


http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z204/CaptainObvious2007/2339e78de6e538a883de794ad171971d.gif

[pomeroo]

The statements are unconfirmed, general reports that don't deal with specific details such as exact heading, speed, etc. They are therefore hearsay.
Upon further investigation, however, it appears that even these unconfirmed accounts do not support the official story.

Without information on Hemphill's position, the quote says little. He says he had a "great view of the capital" which means he would be more to the North side of the Annex. If the plane came over his right shoulder this would fit with "seeming to come directly over the annex". While these details need to be further delineated in an interview, his claim may support the NOC path but definitely contradicts the SOC path.

Penny says she sees the plane flying over Columbia pike coming straight at her on route 27 as she turns to the left. Look on a map, this part of Columbia curves North of the Citgo gas station and intersects with route 27. Elgas is a NOC witness!

This quote requires you to take "agent fescado's" word that he interviewed Riskus, but it doesn't say anything anyway. This quote says absolutely nothing about the approach of the plane, clearly Riskus would pick an angle closer to the damage path, just as Legasse deduced a 'yaw' in the last moments before the impact. It says nothing about the direction the plane came from.

First, this isn't even a witness since he doesn't list a last name and is effectively anonymous. If he is where you say he is, "in front of us" could be either NOC or SOC. We don't have enough details to determine which one he saw.

Craig is an independent citizen investigator who asked specific questions to Morin regarding the flight path and making very specific claims in regards to his answers. You can deny what he is stating but obviously if he is misrepresenting what Morin told him that would put him in a very vulnerable position with all the people out there looking to discredit him.
Regardless the bottom line is that even without Morin and Stephens, you are looking at 11 confirmed independent first hand accounts definitively supporting the north side claim while you have provided ZERO independent confirmed first hand accounts that definitively support a south side flight path.
Furthermore you are forgetting the obvious context of the evidence you are trying (but failing) to refute.
If you hypothetically assume for the moment that the north side witnesses are correct then the undeniable implications are a military deception involving a significant amount of people who were willing to deceive.
That means that any and ALL previously published witnesses are suspect and could potentially be involved in the deception.
In light of this fact you STILL can not provide near enough testimony to put a dent in the north side evidence that has now been clearly validated to the point of redundancy. EVEN IF I accept all of your quotes as 100% valid and accurate evidence.
Have you even viewed the evidence presented in the OP?
How do you explain the detailed accounts of the ANC workers when considering the official flight path?
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/ancgif2.gif


Percentage of witnesses who saw a plane hit the Pentagon: 100

Percentage of witnesses who saw a plane head toward toward the Pentagon, then pull up at the last moment: 0

[WildCat]

In this video TC329 and TLB are represented by the 2 men, while the JREF debunkers are represented by the hot chick. Let's see what happens!

4fiSVxsE0GI&hl

[WildCat]

Uh-oh, here comes Rob Balsamo!

DXBgwKwTfI0

[TheLoneBedouin]

Sure she is, you freakin liar! There's two segments of Columbia Pike that run perpendicular to that highway.
Actually there's only one. Columbia splits into two lanes, both of which curve north of the Citgo, and merge again before intersecting route 27.
Look at the map (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=navy+annex&sll=38.871924,-77.030811&sspn=0.069897,0.132523&ie=UTF8&ll=38.869159,-77.062601&spn=0.004369,0.008283&t=h&z=17).
And what about that 130 mph claim of yours?
Of course you can't compute exact speed from witness accounts- the point is they all say the plane was going significantly slower than reported by the NTSB.
I see no one has answered my question so I'll ask it again:

In light of this fact you STILL can not provide near enough testimony to put a dent in the north side evidence that has now been clearly validated to the point of redundancy. EVEN IF I accept all of your quotes as 100% valid and accurate evidence.
Have you even viewed the evidence presented in the OP?
How do you explain the detailed accounts of the ANC workers when considering the official flight path?

Hotlink removed, link supplied
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/ancgif2.gif

Since there is no way to determine if the permission of the people to display the image was gained, I have removed the hotlink and replaced it with a regular link. If proof is provided, we will return things to their previous state.

[tsig]

Actually there's only one. Columbia splits into two lanes, both of which curve north of the Citgo, and merge again before intersecting route 27.
Look at the map (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=navy+annex&sll=38.871924,-77.030811&sspn=0.069897,0.132523&ie=UTF8&ll=38.869159,-77.062601&spn=0.004369,0.008283&t=h&z=17).

Of course you can't compute exact speed from witness accounts- the point is they all say the plane was going significantly slower than reported by the NTSB.
I see no one has answered my question so I'll ask it again:

In light of this fact you STILL can not provide near enough testimony to put a dent in the north side evidence that has now been clearly validated to the point of redundancy. EVEN IF I accept all of your quotes as 100% valid and accurate evidence.
Have you even viewed the evidence presented in the OP?
How do you explain the detailed accounts of the ANC workers when considering the official flight path?
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/ancgif2.gif

Do these people know you are showing their faces?

[LashL]

<blather>


The stupid - it burns!



ETA:

And as SlightlyAboveApr said so well in another thread:

Guys, guys, guys..........CIT has nothing to do with 9-11 or conspiracies. It's about them. This "new" information isn't (as we all know).

It's about getting attention and stroking their own egos. Period.

If they claim some ridiculous nonsense, let it go. There is no reason to refute/challenge them. The book is closed on this chapter of history, except to CIT and people who can't help but engage them. The whole purpose of the latest CIT propaganda isn't about winning over new 'converts'. It's about eliciting a reaction from us.

We are the fuel these clowns live on. Deprive them of fuel and the nonsense will stop. Well, in all honesty, they will never go away but, they will be contained within the box of woo, where they belong.

Again, nobody cares what CIT has to say. Not the authorities, not the press, not the general, all around public. Only we do. By continuously feeding them the attention they so (apparently) desperately desire, we ensure they will continue to seek our attention.

I can see boiling their assertions down to the Irreducible Delusion and pointing out the flaw(s) for those that might be new to the discussion, but other than that…..why bother?

It’s been (almost) seven years guys. The better half of a decade. There is nothing new to see here. By responding to these clowns we give those on the sideline the appearance there might be something to pay attention to.

Bottom line: point out the Irreducible Delusion and move on. Those that are smart enough to figure out what is woo and what isn’t will see them for what they are. Those that are too stupid (sorry, no nice way to say that) to recognize woo can’t and wont be saved.


He or she is right. These lunatics do not deserve our attention, despite the best efforts of their most recent water carriers/sockpuppets.

[WildCat]

Of course you can't compute exact speed from witness accounts- the point is they all say the plane was going significantly slower than reported by the NTSB.
But you did - you claimed it was 13-18 seconds for the plane to reach the Pentagon from the Navy Annex. At 13 seconds, that's 130 mph - no way in hell a 757 or an E-4B flys that slow (what is the stall speed?) and is able to climb over the Pentagon, let alone bank.

[beachnut]

Actually there's only one. Columbia splits into two lanes, both of which curve north of the Citgo, and merge again before intersecting route 27.
Look at the map (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=navy+annex&sll=38.871924,-77.030811&sspn=0.069897,0.132523&ie=UTF8&ll=38.869159,-77.062601&spn=0.004369,0.008283&t=h&z=17).

Of course you can't compute exact speed from witness accounts- the point is they all say the plane was going significantly slower than reported by the NTSB.
I see no one has answered my question so I'll ask it again:

In light of this fact you STILL can not provide near enough testimony to put a dent in the north side evidence that has now been clearly validated to the point of redundancy. EVEN IF I accept all of your quotes as 100% valid and accurate evidence.
Have you even viewed the evidence presented in the OP?
How do you explain the detailed accounts of the ANC workers when considering the official flight path?


Total failure, these guys talking in 2008 makes it lame and stupid to make up lies like you and CIT do. Since 77 hit the Pentagon, you have to prove 77 did not hit first, and you can't. Do you understand you are following idiots trying to make money off of false ideas on DVDs?

Your own witnesses debunk you.

Please debunk each witness presented, or face the fact you are making up lies buy using testimony 6 years too late.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=169 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3908950&postcount=169)
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=264 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=264)

Read the above witnesses and see you are a liar.
Can those guys sue you for making up lies about what they said?

[Reheat]

But you did - you claimed it was 13-18 seconds for the plane to reach the Pentagon from the Navy Annex. At 13 seconds, that's 130 mph - no way in hell a 757 or an E-4B flys that slow (what is the stall speed?) and is able to climb over the Pentagon, let alone bank.

B-757 = Clean Stall Speed ~ 160 KIAS
B-747-200 = Clean Stall Speed ~ 170 KIAS

It will vary depending on fuel weight. Those are median numbers.

ETA: It's funny that the approach speed for a 757 FULLY CONFIGURED is about 135-140 KIAS, again depending on exact fuel weight. 747-200 approach speed FULLY CONFIGURED is about 150 KIAS, variable with fuel weight.

[R.Mackey]

But you did - you claimed it was 13-18 seconds for the plane to reach the Pentagon from the Navy Annex. At 13 seconds, that's 130 mph - no way in hell a 757 or an E-4B flys that slow (what is the stall speed?) and is able to climb over the Pentagon, let alone bank.

The stall speed for a Boeing 757 is a shade less than 112 knots, or about 128 MPH. This is based on the requirement that Vclimbout > 120% Vs. This is not the "clean" stall speed; this is the absolute minimum with all lift-enhancing surfaces deployed.

So it's barely, barely possible. But this would take an ace pilot, and would be incredibly weird looking to everyone below. The C-130 would easily catch this aircraft. And there's no possible way it would be able to carry out interesting maneuvers, like weave around the light poles and pull a miracle pull-out before screaming away, never to be seen again. The aircraft needs every puff of wind just to stay airborne and cannot maneuver.

[GregHouseMD]

The "Truth" is hidden from us all, except the CIT people and their close personal friends of course.

It's very effectively hidden from us since the intelligent, reasoning people who populate this forum for the most part are unable to see the "Truth" and isn't that a damn shame?

It's just occurred to me one reason we cannot see the "Truth" is that "they", the people behind the conspiracy, are very devious. Far more cunning than anyone has conceived of them being.

But they would have to be extremely intelligent, very well organized and possess skills and powers beyond that of the best government agents and officials found in all of Tom Clancy's books. Without these skill sets and abilities, they would have been found out years ago, right?

"They" hired a baker's dozen of actors to pretend to be witnesses and "help" the CIT and their friends find the "Truth". They hired these people to tell the CIT what really happened in such a cockeyed and unbelievable fashion that no one in their right mind would believe it. Unless of course they were so desperately lonely, depressed and misguided that they are willing to grasp at any straw in hope that at the bottom of their half empty glass they will find a lingering sip of hope to quench their parched brains.

My hat is off to "they", those people described by TLB as:


These people do not leave anything to chance.

How true, they realized someone would figure out what really happened and they ran this false flag op within the much larger false flag op to throw off the seekers of truth and justice (Just $15 per DVD or both for $25.)

The beauty of their conspiracy within a conspiracy is pure genius! Now they have the CIT and other "Truthers" running around trying to make this totally idiotic version of what "really happened" make sense and they come off looking like complete fools.

Masterful work, I am in awe.

Of course, I could be wrong; the "Truthers" could really be complete fools…


Oh and TLB, TC329, and all you others who seek truth and justice, once you get paid for it. I'm waiting for at least one of you to try to justify making money off the deaths of Americans.

[WildCat]

Of course, I could be wrong; the "Truthers" could really be complete fools…
I think you're wrong, but anyway welcome to the JREF forum!

:welcome2

[Jonnyclueless]

And flying a plane over top of a building in front of 1000s of people without anyone seein and causing many people to see the plane actually hit the building when it didn,t as well as planting an entire planes worth of parts and people in front of 1000s of people without anyone noticing and getting that plane and debris from some crash site to the scene within an hour and without anyone noticing, and knocking down trees and lamp posts in front of 1000s of people without any of them noticing and doing it all on a whim that someone just happens to not notice all this circus work going on in rush hour......


Well, that's a bit harder than some armchair warriors over at the 9/11 cult tabloids seem to think. And speaking of armchair warriors, what exactly are the clowns over at the CIT and PFT cults doing about this proven event? I mean it's uncontestable according to your peanut gallery, so all you are doing about it is sitting on an online form and trying to sell DVDs out of the back of a car? Really? Shouldn't a proven crime be reported to the police, or be talked about no all the national news networks and talk show circuits? Especially one that involves the biggest crime in the history of man?

Please tell us why the most you would do with a solved criminal case would be to make some homemade CDs to sell on a web site. It's important enough for you kids to waste all your time with on the internet, but not important enough to file a lawsuit? Come on, the evidence is validated to the point of redundancy, so you should have nothing to lose by filing a lawsuit right?

Bump.

[GlennB]

These people do not leave anything to chance. Traveling at such high speeds, the possible damage to the plane from impacting a light pole could have been quite severe.

So, according to you, they removed poles from the SoC path to avoid accidentally damaging the flyover plane.

Then they deliberately flew NoC, away from the area so carefully denuded of light poles.

I tried thinking about this for a while, but it hurt.

[Mangoose]

Regardless the bottom line is that even without Morin and Stephens, you are looking at 11 confirmed independent first hand accounts definitively supporting the north side claim while you have provided ZERO independent confirmed first hand accounts that definitively support a south side flight path....If you hypothetically assume for the moment that the north side witnesses are correct then the undeniable implications are a military deception involving a significant amount of people who were willing to deceive. That means that any and ALL previously published witnesses are suspect and could potentially be involved in the deception.


What a way to impeach the account of anyone who doesn't already support your theory. In other words, all previously published witnesses are suspect and "potentially involved in the deception" if they disagree with your cherrypicked set of "north side" witnesses. Classic case of hasty generalization and a priori reasoning. For the reality is that the number of "south side" first hand witnesses interviewed by CIT is not ZERO. That magic number is achieved only by first eliminating people like Lloyd England and Stephen McGraw from the group of witnesses. Yet the reason why they are not counted is that they disagree with the so-called "north side" witnesses. So the number of "south side" witnesses are automatically going to be ZERO no matter what, since they will as a matter of course be ignored by virtue of the fact that they are "south side" witnesses. The fallacious reasoning at work:

...in light of the testimony from the witnesses who were at the CITGO station placing the plane on the north side it has been shown that Lloyd's account is a complete fabrication. There is no chance a plane on the north side of the CITGO station could have hit light pole #1. This means that Lloyd England has now been shown beyond a reasonable doubt to have been directly involved with this black operation of mass murder.

http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic2.htm (http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic2.htm)


Of course, CIT also has to slander the guy (who kindly took them into his home and offered his time to assist them) since his testimony puts the plane over the "official path" and his car is part of the physical evidence of toppled light poles that CIT maintains was faked prior to the attack. England has to be "in on it" if the plane really was nowhere near him toppling light poles, and so behind his back Ranke has termed him "The First Accomplice?" on the internet. An accomplice to mass murder, nice.

The real "bottom line" is that the physical evidence at the scene trumps whatever memories your select group of witnesses report six years later. Let's do a little thought experiment. Let's say you're totally right, CIT cracked the case, and the plane did indeed fly "north of the Citgo" and flew over the Pentagon, never to be seen again. Let's accept that as a historical fact. What I want to know is how the perps managed to do all this in preparation of the "attack":

1) Shave the top of the tree near light pole #1 to make it look like something grazed it....

AND

2) Damage the VDOT mast by taking out a rung and making the metal in the same location look like it was nicked by the plane's wing (also they had to knock the VDOT camera loose as well)....

AND

3) Plant damaged light poles at the scene on both sides of the highway. Bear in mind that the poles were bent, clipped, and splintered near the top, with pieces scattered around, so the perps would had to have either damaged them in such a complex matter at the scene, or they would have had to truck in five additional poles already damaged. And not all of this could have been done in secrecy in the dead of night. In the midst of traffic stopped at a standstill, at the moment of the attack, they would had to have damaged England's taxi and planted the pole right in the street....

AND

4) Take a section of chain-link fence on the Pentagon grounds that lines up with the light pole path and damage it by flattening the fence poles, bending them toward the building like twist-ties....

AND

5) Punch a big hole in the diesel generator right behind the fence and move it towards the building....

AND

6) Steal away one of the cable spools on the grounds and scatter the rest of them towards the building....

AND

7) Punch a small hole in the retaining wall of the vent structure, and trash the right half of the structure....

AND

8) Dismantle a construction trailer directly in front of the building and scatter its debris not only around the exterior but even inside the gaping hole of the building....

AND

9) Spray black drops all over the outer facade to make it look like it had been sprayed with jet fuel....

AND

10) Damage the outer limestone facade of the building far beyond the central blast zone, to make it look like something struck it....

AND

11) Destroy structural columns inside the building on a path that lines up with the light poles outside the building....

AND

12) Deposit plane debris and human remains of passengers inside the building (including a flight data recorder that would fool the NTSB as from Flight 77 -- unless they are "in on it" too), but mixed thoroughly with burned building contents such that recovery workers would have to sift through the mess....

AND

13) Plant a landing gear in AE Drive before the first firefighters arrived, and also deposit a great quantity of human remains and assorted wreckage in a pile outside the punchout hole....

AND

14) Scatter mostly small pieces of aircraft wreckage throughout the lawn outside, in the street, even on the Columbia Pike overpass on Rt. 27 near the downed light poles. This is a very large area so this would possibly have to be done prior to the attack, and yet not be noticed by anyone. Also be sure to throw up some of the debris in the air at the exact moment of the explosion, so that some witnesses in their cars would see it rain down on them and even take samples home with them...

AND

15) Put atomized jet fuel inside the lungs of some of the Pentagon victims....

AND I'm sure I've forgotten some other preparations that would had to have been made.

Now, how many people would have been involved in setting all this up? How could all this have been done in secret unnoticed? Why after going through all this elaborate trouble in crafting a perfect crime scene did the perps fail to get the plane to fly over the correct place? And most of all, how could such a convoluted plot have not only been seriously discussed in a planning session but also adopted as the plan of action? How could such a plan have been greenlit when there would have been so many unnecessary opportunities for discovery? How could they have known that there wouldn't have been some witness somewhere in Pentagon City, or on the other side of the building, or on Route 27, or from the Washington Annex, or at Arlington Cemetary, who had a camera or videocam running who could have captured the whole thing and instantly captured proof of the fakery firsthand? The whole plot depended on there not being anyone out there who happened to videotape the plane flying away after the explosion, or the plane flying over the building on a "north side" path. How could they have possibly expected that no one would have captured proof of the fraud and sent it to the authorities or put it online unbeknownst to the perps? And how could they have expected to fool those on the other side of the Pentagon who would have seen the explosion and a plane flying away from it? The whole flyover deception plan seemed to only care about fooling those on the west side -- not those to the east or in Crystal City or Washington who would have seen the flyover in all its glory. I cannot scarcely imagine how a plan as stupid as this would have been funded and put into action.

[Caustic Logic]

Love the OP picture/title screen, Have to wonder if any of those names will ever appear on their expanding list of off-the-record interviews we're asked to believe the CIT on. I get what they're going for, summed up once with the caption "war Pigs." Nice attempt to use an initial emotional drive to barrel through the ensuing absolute BS.



You can join Caustic Logic as the sole individual willing to accuse the witnesses of being operatives sent out to deliberately lie while taking part in a vast disinfo conspiracy to incorrectly demonstrate the official story false……or you can accept the undeniable implications of this clearly fatal contradiction to the official 9/11 narrative and join the true skeptics, CIT, in their quest to uncover this military deception and expose the fraudulent permanent global war on terror.

Thanks, "The Lone Bedouin" for the distinction. Sounds like an attempt to make me sound stupid and nutso. Funny that it's also inaccurate. I should start a thread to explain this but in short that's one possible explanation for why they all said the plane was where it wasn't, pretty uniformly and with no exceptions. Seems odd to me! Either they're right or it's quite a coincidence, or something else. I dunno. A group prank is at least as likely. Or some permutation of factors... The But they're all wrong about the plane, however/whyever, memory issues need to be considered and they can get pretty weird, that is far more important. CIT ignores this.

Does "The Lone Beduin" just single me out to provoke me and create more buzz and waste more peoples' time? Maybe not, but Terriers, however, are a different breed.
so this is why the guy cleans toilets for a living?
Fine, consider me provoked.

So: my "theory" abused by CIT/ally as the 'gutter' they set-up to try and "herd" JREF truthers ("critical thinkers") to their website by offering my "theory" as the only "rational" alternative to their interpretation. This is used as the gutter, which everyone does take care no to fall into so far, because it is so paranoid and stupid amyone ho would think that must be unable to do anything other than clean.

Alright, I call Fallacy! If this "disinfo theory" is so nutty and ridiculous, then why did it never occur to the logically challenged paranoids behind CIT?

[Caustic Logic]

I've used the analogy before, but when I see groups like CIT proudly start a thread on JREF promoting their latest video I'm reminded of a 2-year old proudly running to his mommy to show her the amazing pie he made out of Play-Doh.

Mommy isn't impressed by your Play-Doh pie.

Ooooh, Gumboot, I made a pay-do pie!
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/mmmpie.jpg
Isn't it cool? I also made this one (http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/04/cherry-pie-from-robs-orchard.html), rom overabundant Balsamo Cherries [I know it's off-topic but related to recent discussions]. It still hurts this expert pilot he was mauled in slow-motion but quite soundly by a lowly janitor. At least he was more correct in calling me a trash hauler.

More of what CIT ignores:
Lots of SoC witnesses, try Alan Wallace's 45 degree approach, the ones Mangoose found (good one, dude!) and the others. Where did CIT decide McGraw was after they interviewed him? What constitutes "before him where the pole was hit, where a line from him to the pole gives us the flight path? No asking of this witness? No path? He's a "no path" witness? CIT ignore mode. Investigation they call it!

CIT or allies. How many pull-up witnesses you all got? It used to be one, Mr. "ran up to the mound to see..." You mange to twist one or two more from vague words in old interviews? Lagasse says it hit the building "where it meets the ground." All else agree. You need to hire interns to dig through the archives looking for things that COULD be read as something or possibly/definitely implying? Get your list If you ingore/confuse/distort the rest of what they say?

TLB or TC, Care to answer the fanged cat's question about Morin's account taken by your buddies that indicates a speed of like 150 mph? Do you guys enjoy improve comedy, or being involved in it? Are you dupes or pros?

[ETA: I see you did address the speed thing but it's worth mentioning again. Nice comeback, very CIT. Yes, "significantly" different from what the FDR, radar, video, physical evidence (depth of penetration, etc) and all witnesses imply - a broad range from 400-530 mph, not "whatever speed makes our proposed flight path remotely possible", less than half the low end of the real range!.]

[bje]

It didn't take much for TLB to admit his bald-face lies that CIT had any attention of interviewing any of the key eyewitnesses to the wreckage.

I now agree with others that we should henceforth ignore all of these CIT apologists.

[GregHouseMD]

Please TC329, TLB, ANYONE in the CIT, explain the need to sell evidence, the sound of crickets chirping is about to drive me crazy...

Unless of course there is no vaild, acceptable reason that you feel the need to profit from the deaths of innocent citizens.

In that case, I can understand why you won't try to answer the question, why you're afraid to reply to me on this point.

Your silence just veryifies what I'm saying, you're selling lies and disrespecting the deaths of thousands of Amweicans in the process just for the profit.

[doobiedoright]

obviously and not suprisingly you didn't watch the video because Father McGraw admits to not having actually seen that happen only deducing by seeing the downed poles after the fact.......

how typical of you "researchers"......thats why i call you guys duh-bunkers.:D





Does a bear crap in the woods?

I mean you can step in it if you go hiking but how do you know a bear actually craped there if there is no video!!!!:jaw-dropp

[bje]

Originally Posted by TC329 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3908253#post3908253)
obviously and not suprisingly you didn't watch the video because Father McGraw admits to not having actually seen that happen only deducing by seeing the downed poles after the fact.......Does a bear crap in the woods?

I mean you can step in it if you go hiking but how do you know a bear actually craped there if there is no video!!!!:jaw-droppTalking about deducing crap in the woods, can you imagine TC329's reaction when Aldo wrote why he wouldn't interview any of 1,000 eyewitnesses?:

Aldo: "We already told you that we believe wreckage was planted inside BEFORE the event...So we have nothing for you."

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=133&st=15

[TheLoneBedouin]

The stall speed for a Boeing 757 is a shade less than 112 knots, or about 128 MPH. This is based on the requirement that Vclimbout > 120% Vs. This is not the "clean" stall speed; this is the absolute minimum with all lift-enhancing surfaces deployed.

So it's barely, barely possible. But this would take an ace pilot, and would be incredibly weird looking to everyone below. The C-130 would easily catch this aircraft. And there's no possible way it would be able to carry out interesting maneuvers, like weave around the light poles and pull a miracle pull-out before screaming away, never to be seen again. The aircraft needs every puff of wind just to stay airborne and cannot maneuver.
So what?
Perhaps the plane was going 150 MPH!
You cannot prove the decoy jet was a 757 any more than you can prove a 757 hit the Pentagon.
This means you are perpetuating a straw man argument.
Why are you using faulty logic as a means to dismiss scientifically validated evidence?

[TheLoneBedouin]

Thanks, "The Lone Bedouin" for the distinction. Sounds like an attempt to make me sound stupid and nutso. Funny that it's also inaccurate. I should start a thread to explain this but in short that's one possible explanation for why they all said the plane was where it wasn't, pretty uniformly and with no exceptions. Seems odd to me! Either they're right or it's quite a coincidence, or something else. I dunno. A group prank is at least as likely. Or some permutation of factors... The But they're all wrong about the plane, however/whyever, memory issues need to be considered and they can get pretty weird, that is far more important. CIT ignores this.
Caustic Logic,

Have you viewed the new evidence?

Levi Stephens and Terry Morin are the only two who refused to give permission to publish the interviews so that still leaves 11 north side witnesses on record.

How do you explain the accounts of Darrell Stafford, Darius Prather, Donald Carter, William Middleton, George Aman, and Maria De La Cerda?

Are they in on the "prank" too?

[Drs_Res]

So what?
Perhaps the plane was going 150 MPH!
You cannot prove the decoy jet was a 757 any more than you can prove a 757 hit the Pentagon.
This means you are perpetuating a straw man argument.
Why are you using faulty logic as a means to dismiss scientifically validated evidence?

Witness testimony is NOT scientifically validated evidence.

Heck, Craig couldn't even number the light poles on a phototgraph properly after thinking about this stuff all of the time. He had to be pulled kicking and screaming all of the way.

Physical evidence trumps witness testimony.

[GlennB]

So what?
Perhaps the plane was going 150 MPH!
You cannot prove the decoy jet was a 757 any more than you can prove a 757 hit the Pentagon.
This means you are perpetuating a straw man argument.
Why are you using faulty logic as a means to dismiss scientifically validated evidence?

Beyond parody.

[Minadin]

So what?
Perhaps the plane was going 150 MPH!
You cannot prove the decoy jet was a 757 any more than you can prove a 757 hit the Pentagon.
This means you are perpetuating a straw man argument.
Why are you using faulty logic as a means to dismiss scientifically validated evidence?


I don't think you know what some of these terms mean.

[Alt+F4]

Have you viewed the new evidence?

You must mean the June publication of Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11.

Well I wouldn't consider it new evidence, but rather more detailed evidence. Here's just a partial list of the members of the Arlington County Fire Department who fought the fire, saw the bodies and plane remains.

Can you explain why the CIT refuses to speak with any of these men?

Jim Anderson
Bobby Beer
Ed Blunt
Jim Bonzano
Fred Calvert
Ron Christman
Bob Cornwell
Chris Cox
Dan Fitch
Chuck Gibbs
Alan Wallace
Dennis Young

[~enigma~]

Can you explain why the CIT refuses to speak with any of these men?

ooh...can I try?

CIT refuses to speak to any firefighters or Chris Combs (FBI) at the pentagon because they would easily show that the Pentacon is a con job of the first degree and therefore Alpo and Craig would lose their only friends (dignity is already gone).

[OldTigerCub]

You must mean the June publication of Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11.

Well I wouldn't consider it new evidence, but rather more detailed evidence. Here's just a partial list of the members of the Arlington County Fire Department who fought the fire, saw the bodies and plane remains.

Can you explain why the CIT refuses to speak with any of these men?

Jim Anderson
Bobby Beer
Ed Blunt
Jim Bonzano
Fred Calvert
Ron Christman
Bob Cornwell
Chris Cox
Dan Fitch
Chuck Gibbs
Alan Wallace
Dennis Young

Pssssssst! You forgot one.....Mark Skipper.;)

Skipper, Wallace and Young were on the Pentagon lawn when the plane hit.

[Alt+F4]

Pssssssst! You forgot one.....Mark Skipper.;)

Skipper, Wallace and Young were on the Pentagon lawn when the plane hit.

You're right and I know their are dozens more. I'm focusing on the Arlington County Fire Department because folks like the CIT have only three choices when it comes to these firefighters: dupes, silenced or co-conspirators. So which is it CIT?

[Mangoose]

Madelyn Zakhem is another "south side" witness who is accused of lying by CIT because she contradicts the "north side" witnesses and therefore cannot be a valid "south side" witness because no honest witness would claim a "south side" flight path (in other words, more hasty generalization, special pleading, and ad hominem to boot):

SHE IS LYING ABOUT THE PLANE COMING OVER HER BUILDING.... Madlene is a suspect witness. She is clearly lying about the flight path. We know because Edward [Paik] blew it out of the water and we interviewed her, and now her bizarre behavior is explained. Madlene Zackem, the lady with the jewish last name, Israeli accent while displaying a crucifix around her neck is not telling the truth about what she saw.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread286109/pg2


Of course she's lying, she's one of those crypto-joos. :rolleyes:

[WildCat]

Of course she's lying, she's one of those crypto-joos. :rolleyes:
Whawhahwhawhaaaaaat? :eek:

[Jonnyclueless]

So what?
Perhaps the plane was going 150 MPH!
You cannot prove the decoy jet was a 757 any more than you can prove a 757 hit the Pentagon.
This means you are perpetuating a straw man argument.
Why are you using faulty logic as a means to dismiss scientifically validated evidence?

Maybe it was santa claus and not a decoy jet. While we're in the world of "let's just make up anything to fit the weakest form of evidence and to replace the stronger evidence, why stop at planes?

I love the "CIT does not work with theories....Except when it comes to all the evidence that proves us wrong".

[Mangoose]

BTW, the last statement I suppose is not to be contradicted by the following::

You will not find a single statement from us where we have accused ANY witnesses as being liars, government agents, or where we have “condemned” them for anything.

http://911files.info/blog/?p=4#comments


I suppose that is because Zakhem isn't really a witness of anything, right? And Lloyd England, the "first accomplice?" to mass murder, isn't accused of anything either, right?

[Mangoose]

Maybe it was santa claus and not a decoy jet. While we're in the world of "let's just make up anything to fit the weakest form of evidence and to replace the stronger evidence, why stop at planes?


I think you are onto something there. It has to be a Klingon Bird of Prey warship, like the one that beamed up a bunch o' whales. Think about it. The perps went through such elaborate, incredibly detailed and complex efforts to fake the physical evidence immediately outside the west side of the Pentagon (see my post above). But they gave no thought to fooling all those who lived in Crystal City and environs who would have seen a big explosion and a huge 757 flying away right at them. Come on, they had to give that some thought. So obviously the "decoy jet" must have had a cloaking device of some sort. It makes no sense that they would have only thought of fooling those on one particular side of the building. It wasn't like David Copperfield where you had to be in just a particular position to see the Statue of Liberty disappear. They had to make the decoy jet disappear around all five sides of the Pentagon. I sure would like to know how they pulled it off.

[Stellafane]

Originally Posted by TheLoneBedouin
So what?
Perhaps the plane was going 150 MPH!
You cannot prove the decoy jet was a 757 any more than you can prove a 757 hit the Pentagon.
This means you are perpetuating a straw man argument.
Why are you using faulty logic as a means to dismiss scientifically validated evidence?

I don't think you know what some of these terms mean.

I think you missed a few.

[TheLoneBedouin]

Madelyn Zakhem is another "south side" witness who is accused of lying by CIT because she contradicts the "north side" witnesses and therefore cannot be a valid "south side" witness because no honest witness would claim a "south side" flight path (in other words, more hasty generalization, special pleading, and ad hominem to boot):
The evidence presented in the OP proves military deception. This means that many people lied and that many people are implicated by the evidence including Zackhem and certainly Lloyd.

CIT doesn't usually speak in such absolutes regarding the guilt or innocence of witnesses but congratulations to you for finding a single post where this was not the case.

However......this has NOTHING to do with the evidence presented in the OP that does in fact implicate Zackhem.

Have you even viewed it?

How do you explain the accounts of Darrell Stafford, Darius Prather, Donald Carter, William Middleton and all the first hand interviews in the presentation?

[Bobert]

Uh oh if you are Jew according to Aldo you cannot be trusted!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Madlene Zackem, the lady with the jewish last name, Israeli accent while displaying a crucifix around her neck is not telling the truth about what she saw
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread286109/pg2
Man I have soooo many good quotes from Aldo within my signature I just dont know which one to replace with the his above statement!!
:)

[~enigma~]

The evidence presented in the OP proves implicates military deception.
Could you translate the bolded into english Craig, Alpo or whoever you are?

[nicepants]

The evidence presented in the OP proves military deception.

I don't recall seeing anything that implicated the military...is there another eyewitness you're not telling us about?

Edit: There's nothing in the OP about the military at all (Except for your claim that they were involved). Where is your evidence for military involvement?

[WildCat]

The evidence presented in the OP proves military deception.
99.999% of the world's population disagrees.

[Porkpie Hat]

I don't recall seeing anything that implicated the military...is there another eyewitness you're not telling us about?

Edit: There's nothing in the OP about the military at all (Except for your claim that they were involved). Where is your evidence for military involvement?

This is what I don’t get. These vandals of veracity plainly state this over and over yet have brought nothing to the table in the form of proof. Even if they could prove the NOC claim, which they haven't, how does it follow that military deception is the only answer?

Something tells me not to trust these clowns. I’m really starting to believe they’re just a bunch of agenda driven zealots.:wink:

[beachnut]

The evidence presented in the OP proves military deception. ...
No it proves CIT are the worse investigators forever. They have taken a soved case and messed up every single part of it.

I was in the military on 9/11, and your insult is a baseless lie.

You are a liar, the evidence proves CIT got everything wrong. You have been shown many witnesses including those of CIT who prove you are wrong.

How do you explain the accounts of Darrell Stafford, Darius Prather, Donald Carter, William Middleton and all the first hand interviews in the presentation?
CIT is so bad, the messed up everything! What year were they interviewed for the lies you make up?

[pomeroo]

So what?
Perhaps the plane was going 150 MPH!
You cannot prove the decoy jet was a 757 any more than you can prove a 757 hit the Pentagon.
This means you are perpetuating a straw man argument.
Why are you using faulty logic as a means to dismiss scientifically validated evidence?


The "decoy" jet didn't exist. There was no decoy jet. There isn't the slightest reason to believe that there was a decoy jet. Nobody observed a plane head straight toward the Pentagon and then pull up at the last moment. It is a mad fantasy fabricated by extremely stupid frauds.

The proof that AA Flight 77 hit the Pentagon is the aircraft wreckage found inside the building and on the lawn, combined with the remains of the passengers and crew found inside the building.

You and the other liar have conspicuously avoided coming to grips with a question that undermines your pernicious and baseless fantasy. Many of the survivors of the Titantic thought that the ship went straight down. Explain the significance of this phenomenon. Were they "lying"? Did they prove that the ship didn't sink?

You can run, but you can't hide.

[pomeroo]

The evidence presented in the OP proves military deception. This means that many people lied and that many people are implicated by the evidence including Zackhem and certainly Lloyd.

CIT doesn't usually speak in such absolutes regarding the guilt or innocence of witnesses but congratulations to you for finding a single post where this was not the case.

However......this has NOTHING to do with the evidence presented in the OP that does in fact implicate Zackhem.

Have you even viewed it?

How do you explain the accounts of Darrell Stafford, Darius Prather, Donald Carter, William Middleton and all the first hand interviews in the presentation?


When Lloyd brings his libel suit, what proofs will you offer the court?

[OldTigerCub]

The evidence presented in the OP proves military deception. This means that many people lied and that many people are implicated by the evidence including Zackhem and certainly Lloyd.

When the evidence implicates an individual or individuals in a crime, in this case criminal conspiracy, one would expect that there should be no difficulty obtaining arrest warrants for said individual(s). Have you or any of the CIT/P4T sworn out such a request with any magistrate or other judge?

CIT doesn't usually speak in such absolutes regarding the guilt or innocence of witnesses but congratulations to you for finding a single post where this was not the case.[/b]

But in this case, it seems you are speaking absolutely about your conviction that Zackhem and Lloyd have committed a crime.

However......this has NOTHING to do with the evidence presented in the OP that does in fact implicate Zackhem.

Have you even viewed it?

Once again, an accusation of guilt on the part of Zackhem.
Time to visit the local magistrate and get those warrants now, don't you think?


How do you explain the accounts of Darrell Stafford, Darius Prather, Donald Carter, William Middleton and all the first hand interviews in the presentation?

The passage of time and the unreliable nature of human long-term memory about stressful events.

When Lloyd brings his libel suit, what proofs will you offer the court?

Good point, pomeroo! TLB claims to have proof, and should be swearing out a request for a warrant. Lloyd may have a very good case against the CIT/P4T boys and could most likely collect damages if they cause him mental stress or negatively impact his ability to make a living. I would love to be a spectator in the courtroom that day!:rolleyes:

[robeeb]

You truthers are a joke. I've entered this forum, given information about an eyewitness who I KNOW was in DC on the morning of 9/11, saw Flight 77 impact the Pentagon, and you truthers have done NOTHING ABOUT IT. The man is my father, and he has recieved NOT ONE PHONE CALL FROM YOU PEOPLE. You claim to be sleuths, whistleblowers, masters of what is available on the internet. You are a JOKE. You never even followed up on what could be a lead, a lead that could PROVE YOUR POINT RIGHT, OR WRONG. You are a pathetic joke. You are a JOKE to the Federal Agencies you claim are "following" you. Thank you for the education as to the true "knowledge" of your so-called movement. The powers at be, are quite safe from you. They are safe, because you have absolutely NO PROOF of anything that would ever implicate the Government in the actions that you are accusing them of. Live with it. You go online, and accuse people of sedition, and murder, with no proof whatsoever. Shame on you cowards.



P.S. After only 67 posts, the majority of "truthers" here seem to already have me on ignore. Hmmmmm. Freedom of speech, does not seem to be their strong suit.

[Jonnyclueless]

The evidence presented in the OP proves military deception. This means that many people lied and that many people are implicated by the evidence including Zackhem and certainly Lloyd.

CIT doesn't usually speak in such absolutes regarding the guilt or innocence of witnesses but congratulations to you for finding a single post where this was not the case.

However......this has NOTHING to do with the evidence presented in the OP that does in fact implicate Zackhem.

Have you even viewed it?

How do you explain the accounts of Darrell Stafford, Darius Prather, Donald Carter, William Middleton and all the first hand interviews in the presentation?

Oh really? So what did the police say when you presented our evidence to them? What did the media say when you showed them your "proof"?

[robeeb]

So what?
Perhaps the plane was going 150 MPH!
You cannot prove the decoy jet was a 757 any more than you can prove a 757 hit the Pentagon.
This means you are perpetuating a straw man argument.
Why are you using faulty logic as a means to dismiss scientifically validated evidence?

The Lone Bedouin,

When was the last time you flew an airplane? I flew one today. It was even a jet (oooh). When was your last flight? I ask this, because you seem to have very little, to no flight experience at all. Yet you try to speak as though you are an expert pilot, and an aeronautical engineer. Could you clear this up for me? I don't want to have any misunderstanding with you if you are in fact, a licensed pilot. Let me know, thanks.

[~enigma~]

The Lone Bedouin,

When was the last time you flew an airplane? I flew one today. It was even a jet (oooh). When was your last flight? I ask this, because you seem to have very little, to no flight experience at all. Yet you try to speak as though you are an expert pilot, and an aeronautical engineer. Could you clear this up for me? I don't want to have any misunderstanding with you if you are in fact, a licensed pilot. Let me know, thanks.
According to those morons over at pilots for 9/11 truth anybody can be a pilot since the real meaning is guide.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=603

[robeeb]

According to those morons over at pilots for 9/1 truth anybody can be a pilot since the real meaning is guide.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=603

Thanks enigma, for the reminder. I first went to the Pilots for Truth site thinking there would be actual pilots there, and I was very interested in what these "pilots" had to say. I made the mistake of assuming they had actual pilots there. How stupid I felt when I realized they were just "guides". What a bunch of BS. Do you want to go on a tour of the coast where I live with a "guide" at the controls, or would you rather have an actual licensed pilot on the stick. I haven't seen any of their actual "pilots" they claim to have as members post anything for over a year now. Sad.

[Bobert]

According to those morons over at pilots for 9/11 truth anybody can be a pilot since the real meaning is guide.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=603

WOW just WOW!

[stateofgrace]

The evidence presented in the OP proves military deception. This means that many people lied and that many people are implicated by the evidence including Zackhem and certainly Lloyd.

CIT doesn't usually speak in such absolutes regarding the guilt or innocence of witnesses but congratulations to you for finding a single post where this was not the case.

However......this has NOTHING to do with the evidence presented in the OP that does in fact implicate Zackhem.

Have you even viewed it?

How do you explain the accounts of Darrell Stafford, Darius Prather, Donald Carter, William Middleton and all the first hand interviews in the presentation?

Really ?

From 2007


Below are genuine comments from Craig Ranke from the self proclaimed Citizens Investigation team ( CIT) .The comments are how he views the accounts of this day events , they are self explanatory. They are taken from approx 6 posts in two threads from the LCF; Craig Ranke has over 1500 posts on this forum.


Quote:

“It's clear he has the entire story worked out in his head”

“Lloyd's account is a fabrication”

“Whether or not he was a willing accomplice we do not know but clearly he was involved with the operation”

“Yes there are hundreds accounts of the plane but most could not even see the Pentagon at all.”

“Obviously if 9/11 is an inside job we must assume that some of these accounts were completely fabricated.”

“Lagasse was obviously trying his hardest to support the official story as much as possible.”

"You do realize that Gary Bauer was a member of the PNAC and an actual signer of the document that calls for a "new pearl harbor" right?"

"Rick Renzi, a corrupt republican congressman"

"The ones that aren't liars saw the plane and were fooled into believing it hit the building"

"we know that people were fooled into believing it hit the building"

"The witnesses you posted are dubious"

"Those people would have NOT been able to see what was supposed to be the "original" plane or the one that was supposed to have hit"

"She is clearly embelishing her account"

"Either she is a liar or simply embellished her account for attention"

"These are EXTREMELY dubious witness statements"

"These accounts are questionable on many levels"

"This was merely a cover story meant to blend the identity of the flyover jet"

"he did not even see the Pentagon get hit or know that it was what was hit at first"

"He was obviously NOT near the pentagon during the time of the alleged impact because he could not even tell that the explosion originated from the Pentagon"

“The phone calls are EXTREMELY dubious on many levels”

“As far as the passengers go........most are probably pure victims while some might even be fabricated identities”

“We can not rule out the possibility that a few of the family members were involved.”

“bottom line if 9/11 was an inside job we will never know the full situation with all the passengers and it HAD to involve a significant amount of operatives whether or not the passengers are all innocent victims.”

“some may be expendable patsies or dupes”



http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10257&st=50 (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10257&st=50)

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11107&st=50 (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11107&st=50)


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85609

Sorry,you was saying ?

[TC329]

Can you explain why the CIT refuses to speak with any of these men?

proof for your libelous accusations?

this thread alone is proves who has the balls to speak to people and who don't.

remember the first one of you guys to step up to the plate and try it? bobloblaw?

he don't talk about where boger or stephens puts the plane and isn't interested in tracking down any other witnesses either. thats honest research right there.

he's a pea in the jref pod, isn't he?

[robeeb]

proof for your libelous accusations?

this thread alone is proves who has the balls to speak to people and who don't.

remember the first one of you guys to step up to the plate and try it? bobloblaw?

he don't talk about where boger or stephens puts the plane and isn't interested in tracking down any other witnesses either. thats honest research right there.

he's a pea in the jref pod, isn't he?

Sorry TC, but my father's balls are bigger than yours. And he was in D.C. on 9/11, so that kind of makes you look like a fraud. You fall back on insults, and cheap shots. Your BS will never cut it here, or in a court of law. Where are the courageous "pilots" of your movement? Do you think you can run rampant upon the internet, and say anything you want? Words mean things, and words have consequences. And, while we are speaking of words, your words are those of a first grader. You come here with the grammar of a two year old, and you expect to be taken seriously? I don't expect a reply to this, as I think you put me on Ignore the first time I challenged you with facts. And I'll tell you, I am no pea in anyone's "pod". Truthers, your lies are laid bare, and you, are FRAUDS.

[beachnut]

...
this thread alone is proves who has the balls to speak to people and who don't. ...
No it proves you are able to call your witnesses agents when they fail to support your ideas but proof when you mess up what they say. CIT, citizen investigation team, Pentacon = false information.

Boger saw 77 hit the Pentagon. You are proven wrong. Simple one witness of many prove you wrong.

How many witnesses saw 77 hit the lampposts? You ignore them too because you need to sell DVDs with false ideas manufactured by you from extremely flawed witness statement investigation failure! There must be a term for this? Fraud.

Yes, it is fraud! You say 77 did not hit the Pentagon, you own witnesses say it did. That is fraud.
Witnesses, just some, who prove CIT, citizen investigation team, the Pentacon, is making it all up. There are just the ones you have ignored in this thread.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3908950#post3908950

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3910321#post3910321

[TheLoneBedouin]

Really ?

From 2007



http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85609

Sorry,you was saying ?
None of these quotes accuse anyone of willingly lying to support the official story. They are all variations of the following:

“Whether or not he was a willing accomplice we do not know but clearly he was involved with the operation”

[nicepants]

Bump for Craig...

Where is your evidence for military involvement?

[robeeb]

No it proves you are able to call your witnesses agents when they fail to support your ideas but proof when you mess up what they say. CIT, citizen investigation team, Pentacon = false information.

Boger saw 77 hit the Pentagon. You are proven wrong. Simple one witness of many prove you wrong.

How many witnesses saw 77 hit the lampposts? You ignore them too because you need to sell DVDs with false ideas manufactured by you from extremely flawed witness statement investigation failure! There must be a term for this? Fraud.

Yes, it is fraud! You say 77 did not hit the Pentagon, you own witnesses say it did. That is fraud.
Witnesses, just some, who prove CIT, citizen investigation team, the Pentacon, is making it all up. There are just the ones you have ignored in this thread.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3908950#post3908950

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3910321#post3910321


It's funny Beachnut, how those who preach about "truth", for the people, are the same ones who rip-off those people with DVD's, and books that are based on nothing but lies. Then, they accuse a bunch of people who really do consider the security of our nation to be their first priority, of murder, with no proof. They are indeed, a fraud. How noble.

[TheLoneBedouin]

According to those morons over at pilots for 9/11 truth anybody can be a pilot since the real meaning is guide.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//...?showtopic=603
No, Enigma, you are the moron if you believe what you just wrote. Sanders is using a different use of the word 'pilot' to welcome forum members.
Here are the list of Pilots for 911 Truth Members (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html).

[robeeb]

No, Enigma, you are the moron if you believe what you just wrote. Sanders is using a different use of the word 'pilot' to welcome forum members.
Here are the list of Pilots for 911 Truth Members (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html).

I'm still waiting for an answer TLB to my question about your flight experience. You either have me on Ignore, or you are well disciplined to not have responded to my questions. I think it's the former, am I wrong?

[TheLoneBedouin]

Where is your evidence for military involvement?
Simple,
Since it is impossible for the plane to both fly on the North side and cause the physical damage, then a covert operation must have taken place.
An operation of deception where the damage to the U.S. defense headquarters was covertly implemented from within during a false flag terror event can only implicate those with control of the military's resources.
Now....care to address the evidence presented direct?

How do you reconcile the accounts of Darrell Stafford, Darius Prather, Donald Carter, William Middleton, Roosevelt Roberts and all other witness accounts that this thread is about?

[TheLoneBedouin]

When was the last time you flew an airplane? I flew one today. It was even a jet (oooh). When was your last flight? I ask this, because you seem to have very little, to no flight experience at all. Yet you try to speak as though you are an expert pilot, and an aeronautical engineer.
I've ignored you because the last statement is untrue. Nothing about the witness statements requires any knowledge of aeronautical engineering/ piloting.
Care to address the topic of this thread:

If the citgo witnesses were a strange coincidental fluke can you honestly continue to tell yourself that this fluke has been repeated 9 more times from different perspectives while not a single independently confirmed south side account exists?

[beachnut]

Simple,

Roosevelt Roberts ...

OOPS, the C-130 is visible after the impact, immediate, it is flying up in the SKY, you know, when he looks up he sees a plane, it is in the SKY, the C-130 is right there in front of him flying in the SKY. When I look up I can see planes, Roosevelt can too! Since the only aircraft over the Pentagon after the impact is the C-130, then Roosevelt saw a plane, it was the C-130. He never said in 2001 it was but a plane. Roosevelt has good eyes! He can see airplanes in the sky. But seem like time is a problem in his testimony, I would have you all shut down in a court, after his testimony is seeing the second plane at 9:11! LOL, you lost this case!

You lost this one based on the facts.

I listen to his testimony in 2001, you are BUSTED. Sad to see all of 911 truth is made up of doltish ideas and lies.


Please explain why Roberts says he saw the plane after the impact at 9:11, or 9:12? Make it real simple. Does this mean you did not listen to Roberts testimony in 2001!?

[X]

Simple,
Since it is impossible for the plane to both fly on the North side and cause the physical damage, then a covert operation must have taken place.
An operation of deception where the damage to the U.S. defense headquarters was covertly implemented from within during a false flag terror event can only implicate those with control of the military's resources.
Now....care to address the evidence presented direct?

How do you reconcile the accounts of Darrell Stafford, Darius Prather, Donald Carter, William Middleton, Roosevelt Roberts and all other witness accounts that this thread is about?




I like it.

Premise: Inside Job!!1!eleventy!
A plane flying on the North side could not have cause the damage.
The overwhelming amount of evidence that the plane did not fly on the North side is wrong, because it was an inside job.
The fact that there is damage and evidence against a North side pass is proof of an inside job, because a plane flying on the North side could not have caused the accident.
Conclusion" OMG! Inside job 1eleventyone11!1!eleventy!

[jhunter1163]

Simple,
Since it is impossible for the plane to both fly on the North side and cause the physical damage, then a covert operation must have taken place.

I can think of at least one other option, namely, that CIT's witnesses are mistaken and/or have had their statements twisted by unscrupulous charlatans to support a bizarre theory that no one outside of a few loons finds even remotely plausible.

[Hokulele]

Nothing about the witness statements requires any knowledge of aeronautical engineering/ piloting.


If the witness statements result in a flight path that violates either the laws of physics or the capabilities of the aircraft involved, I would have to say that support for those statements require people who cannot possibly have any knowledge of aeronautical engineering/piloting.

So in that sense, you are correct.

[robeeb]

I've ignored you because the last statement is untrue. Nothing about the witness statements requires any knowledge of aeronautical engineering/ piloting.
Care to address the topic of this thread:

If the citgo witnesses were a strange coincidental fluke can you honestly continue to tell yourself that this fluke has been repeated 9 more times from different perspectives while not a single independently confirmed south side account exists?


Thanks for considering my question, I do appreciate it. I've spoken before of the eyewitness who I know personally. This witness saw the aircraft in question, UA-77 impact the Pentagon. I have not spoken to, nor do I know any of the witnesses you speak of that were at, or around the Citgo Station, so I will not attempt to prove or disprove their testimony. What I do know, is what my father saw. He saw a United Airlines passenger jet fly into the Pentagon. My father is a pilot, and, in a bit of irony, used to be a Skymarshal (now called Federal Air Marshal) He has 30 years of service in Federal law enforcement, and is a trained observer. His ability to ID aircraft is excellent, and he is well aware of the possible anomalies involved in eyewitness testimony. He is a credible witness, and I have no reason to think otherwise. He saw, what hundreds (I don't have an exact number) of other people saw. I have to believe him.

As far as your flight training is concerned, I brought the subject up in response to your statements regarding how fast the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was going. From what I have seen, you are not qualified to give an analysis of what any 757 variant is capable of.

From my point of view, the "official story" is valid, and there are no other logical theories that prove otherwise. This is my opinions of what happened on 9/11 based on the observations of a firsthand witness.

[stateofgrace]

None of these quotes accuse anyone of willingly lying to support the official story. They are all variations of the following:

Really ?

“It's clear he has the entire story worked out in his head”

“Lloyd's account is a fabrication”

“Whether or not he was a willing accomplice we do not know but clearly he was involved with the operation”

“Yes there are hundreds accounts of the plane but most could not even see the Pentagon at all.”

“Lagasse was obviously trying his hardest to support the official story as much as possible.

Obviously if 9/11 is an inside job we must assume that some of these accounts were completely fabricated.”

"You do realize that Gary Bauer was a member of the PNAC and an actual signer of the document that calls for a "new pearl harbor" right?"

"Rick Renzi, a corrupt republican congressman"

"The ones that aren't liars saw the plane and were fooled into believing it hit the building"

"we know that people were fooled into believing it hit the building"

"The witnesses you posted are dubious"

"Those people would have NOT been able to see what was supposed to be the "original" plane or the one that was supposed to have hit"

"She is clearly embelishing her account"

"Either she is a liar or simply embellished her account for attention"

"These are EXTREMELY dubious witness statements"

"These accounts are questionable on many levels"

"This was merely a cover story meant to blend the identity of the flyover jet"

"he did not even see the Pentagon get hit or know that it was what was hit at first"

"He was obviously NOT near the pentagon during the time of the alleged impact because he could not even tell that the explosion originated from the Pentagon"

“The phone calls are EXTREMELY dubious on many levels”

“As far as the passengers go........most are probably pure victims while some might even be fabricated identities”

“We can not rule out the possibility that a few of the family members were involved.”

“bottom line if 9/11 was an inside job we will never know the full situation with all the passengers and it HAD to involve a significant amount of operatives whether or not the passengers are all innocent victims.”

“some may be expendable patsies or dupes”

Read again, this was take from 6 posts pal, six posts out of 1500,in which YOU accuse witnesses of lying. You accuse witnesses of being involved in mass murder. YOU imply the families and victims may even have been involved. YOU call them dupes or expendable patsies.

Well?

[TheRedWorm]

well plane debris with serial numbers that can be confirmed as being there through photographic evidence placing it at the scene at that time would be a start but again this thread has nothing to do with the pentagon.


In another thread you posted this. (My mistake for asking it there instead of here in the first place) Is it fair to say that this is your standard of evidence for every event? Or does this standard only apply to the flightpath and subsequent crash of flight 77 at the Pentagon?

Bump for TC. Alternatively; TLB, do you think this is a reasonable standard of evidence? Why or why not?

[hxstamper]

I was going to ignore this post this am, but this was just too good to pass up.

What I do know, is what my father saw. He saw a United Airlines passenger jet fly into the Pentagon. .....

His ability to ID aircraft is excellent,


Your dad with his "excellent aircraft ID ability" may want to let the 9/11 Commission know he saw a United Airlines jet, cause they seem to think it was American Airlines, along with the NTSB, FBI et al.


Exactly how "excellent" is your fathers' aircraft ID ability? Any chance your father would be willing to give an interview? Or do we just take your word for it? (albeit conflicting with govt reports).

[TheRedWorm]

Post above yours, hxstamper. Care to have a go?

[hxstamper]

It is unprecedented to not have serial numbers documented in the event of a major air disaster. In the case of Sept 11, all 4 aircraft have never been positively identified nor documented. Unprecedented. If you need more clarification, feel free to contact us and/or the NTSB. We, as well as the NTSB have several Aircraft Accident Investigators to answer your questions.

Or, you can go here to understand the precedent...

9/11 Aircraft 'Black Box' Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=11066)

Hope this helps...

[~enigma~]

No, Enigma, you are the moron if you believe what you just wrote. Sanders is using a different use of the word 'pilot' to welcome forum members.
Here are the list of Pilots for 911 Truth Members (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html).
Calling me a moron isn't civil and is a clear breach of the MA you signed. BTW, that still doesn't change the fact that Sanders said a pilot is a guide and that ANYBODY can be a pilot. Deal with it sockboy...

[hxstamper]

TLB,

Dont bother, its clear enigma doesnt have a clue that in fact many core members of P4T, including many working behind the scenes (yeah, anonymous JREF members like to attempt character assassination when given a real name), are posting/read/are registered on P4T forums and the numbers continue to grow.

Several of our staff on the forum are P4T core members (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core). Many do not use their real name on the forum.

[pomeroo]

Simple,
Since it is impossible for the plane to both fly on the North side and cause the physical damage, then a covert operation must have taken place.
An operation of deception where the damage to the U.S. defense headquarters was covertly implemented from within during a false flag terror event can only implicate those with control of the military's resources.
Now....care to address the evidence presented direct?

How do you reconcile the accounts of Darrell Stafford, Darius Prather, Donald Carter, William Middleton, Roosevelt Roberts and all other witness accounts that this thread is about?


Very few witnesses describe an impossible flight path. The frauds and liars of the CIT refuse to resolve the mutually exclusive claims made by the tiny handful of NOC witnesses. We all understand that those witnesses will continue to insist that they saw a plane crash into the Pentagon.

Many survivors of the Titantic claimed that the ship went straight down. What are the implications of this fact for your dishonest reliance on a few cherry-picked witnesses?

You can run, but you can't hide.

[bje]

It is unprecedented to not have serial numbers documented in the event of a major air disaster.

Let's review, Rob, since you are so adamant in ignoring the NTSB.

I. You possess no knowledge of whether any documentation of serial numbers took place or not.

2. Serial numbers are not needed by the NTSB or FBI to identify what aircraft has crashed when other evidence indicates what aircraft crashed. This is beyond self-evident.

You're wasting your time, Rob, trying to convince intelligent people of you con game when you should be writing those letters of apologies to the families of the victims.

[~enigma~]

TLB,

Dont bother, its clear enigma doesnt have a clue that in fact many core members of P4T, including many working behind the scenes (yeah, anonymous JREF members like to attempt character assassination when given a real name), are posting/read/are registered on P4T forums and the numbers continue to grow.

Several of our staff on the forum are P4T core members (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core). Many do not use their real name on the forum.
Does that change what Sanders said is Rob's own definition of pilot and that anybody can be one since it simply means guide? Guess you best delete that idiotic post otherwise it will be quoted again and again.

[hxstamper]

Does that change what Sanders said is Rob's own definition of pilot and that anybody can be one since it simply means guide? Guess you best delete that idiotic post otherwise it will be quoted again and again.


The definition of "pilot" has many different meanings (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pilot).. Sanders was using.... ahh hell... what a waste of time. If you dont understand the meaning of the post, there is absolutely no reason to educate you on the matter.

Enigma, if you want to quote that post again and again in a poor attempt to insinuate that "there arent any pilots at P4T", be my guest. I can see why you also have a disposable internet name, never using your own, as its clear you anticipate destroying the credibility of the one you have.

Have a nice day.. :D

[~enigma~]

Enigma, if you want to quote that post again and again in a poor attempt to insinuate that "there arent any pilots at P4T", be my guest. Apparently reading is not your strong point either. I am saying by the definition given by Sanders EVERYBODY is a pilot since it only means guide.I can see why you also have a disposable internet name, never using your own, as its clear you anticipate destroying the credibility of the one you have.
So says the guy that goes by the name hxstamper and the guy who just said alot of the guides over at your forum don't use their real name on the forum.

[hxstamper]

Enigma, i know that the only way you can get human interaction is perhaps through negative attention on this forum indicative of you spending your whole weekends, days and nights, arguing with and about people you think are nuts, but some of us have better things to do... however, i'll reply this one last time to you...

Apparently reading is not your strong point either. I am saying by the definition given by Sanders EVERYBODY is a pilot since it only means guide.

Whatever floats your boat...


So says the guy that goes by the name hxstamper

According to all of you, i am Rob Balsamo (and so are many other internet UserID's here who back you people into a corner based on facts).

and the guy who just said alot of the guides over at your forum don't use their real name on the forum.

Read again... and click the link..

"Several of our staff on the forum are P4T core members (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core). Many do not use their real name on the forum."


Where did i say "guides"? What happens when you click the link? You see Real names? Ever cross-referenced them at faa.gov? No? why not? You have anything remotely resembling as such? No? good for you as your credibility is shot under your UserID. Might want to think about getting another.

Enjoy your Sunday enigma... i know i will. :D

[bje]

According to all of you, i am Rob Balsamo (and so are many other internet UserID's here who back you people into a corner based on facts).

Are you denying you're Rob Balsamo?

[~enigma~]

Pure, unadulterated nonsense snipped
Sanders didn't say..
Don't be fooled by the name of the forum - we are all pilots for truth. To pilot means to GUIDE, the use of the word is not restricted to airplanes.

at

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=603

[nicepants]

Simple,
Since it is impossible for the plane to both fly on the North side and cause the physical damage, then a covert operation must have taken place.
An operation of deception where the damage to the U.S. defense headquarters was covertly implemented from within during a false flag terror event can only implicate those with control of the military's resources.


Nothing in your theory (bolded) requires the participation or knowledge of any element of the military.

Enigma, i know that the only way you can get human interaction is perhaps through negative attention on this forum indicative of you spending your whole weekends, days and nights, arguing with and about people you think are nuts, but some of us have better things to do...

Better things to do? Like "arguing with and about people you think are nuts?"...because that's exactly what you're doing, Rob.

Pot? Meet Kettle.

[nicepants]

double

[Stellafane]

I think it's pretty clear this thread -- indeed, probably the whole CIT thing -- had migrated into downtown Lunacyville. Consider: no witnesses saw the plane fly over the Pentagon. And yet, what do the flyover people consider their strongest evidence? The eyewitness testimony! This isn't like trying to make something out of nothing, it's like trying to make ice cubes out of fire.

They're not listening, they apparently don't have the inclination and/or capacity. It's an interesting exercise from a clinical standpoint perhaps, but otherwise I don't think there's really any point in further engaging people so obviously immersed in insanity.

[doobiedoright]

Wheres your video of a fly over?
Wheres your video of a plane on the north side?
Wheres the video of people planting the light poles?
I mean they are pretty heavy and it had to take at least 2 guys to lift them.
Did nobody have a pic cell phone out in all that traffic?
Wheres the video of all the people scattering all the debris a round?
Surely somebody saw them......I tell you what....Just show me 1 witness saying they saw people doing these things!
You cant.............so I guess that means you cant prove a damn thing can you?
Like you guys say if you dont have video you can't prove anything.......so where is any video proving what you lie about?
You should be ashamed of your selves...............making money off of the deaths of Americans!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are scum and you deserve what is coming to you one day!

[TheRedWorm]

It is unprecedented to not have serial numbers documented in the event of a major air disaster. In the case of Sept 11, all 4 aircraft have never been positively identified nor documented. Unprecedented. If you need more clarification, feel free to contact us and/or the NTSB. We, as well as the NTSB have several Aircraft Accident Investigators to answer your questions.

Or, you can go here to understand the precedent...

9/11 Aircraft 'Black Box' Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=11066)

Hope this helps...

Wheres your video of a fly over?
Wheres your video of a plane on the north side?
Wheres the video of people planting the light poles?
...
...
Wheres the video of all the people scattering all the debris a round?
<snipped to the vital questions>

Since this seems to be your standard of evidence, answer the above questions. If no proof such as this exists, you must admit that you are biased, and that evidence means very little to you.

[doobiedoright]

Now who is painted into a corner?

[funk de fino]

It is unprecedented to not have serial numbers documented in the event of a major air disaster. In the case of Sept 11, all 4 aircraft have never been positively identified nor documented. Unprecedented. If you need more clarification, feel free to contact us and/or the NTSB. We, as well as the NTSB have several Aircraft Accident Investigators to answer your questions.

Or, you can go here to understand the precedent...

9/11 Aircraft 'Black Box' Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=11066)

Hope this helps...

I produced NTSB and AAIB reports from accidents that had a distinct lack of serial numbers (yes, for FDR as well). The truther who asked for them suddenly went quiet. Do you want me to get them for you?

Do we have to point out the difference between an accidental or unknown cause crash and a deliberate use of the plane as a weapon?

[tsig]

The definition of "pilot" has many different meanings (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pilot).. Sanders was using.... ahh hell... what a waste of time. If you dont understand the meaning of the post, there is absolutely no reason to educate you on the matter.

Enigma, if you want to quote that post again and again in a poor attempt to insinuate that "there arent any pilots at P4T", be my guest. I can see why you also have a disposable internet name, never using your own, as its clear you anticipate destroying the credibility of the one you have.

Have a nice day.. :D

Hi Rob

I'm sure hxstamper is your real name.

[jhunter1163]

Hi Rob

I'm sure hxstamper is your real name.

Oh, now, now, tsig.

Rob Balsamo is an hour-padding, medically disqualified, crack-smoking, glue-sniffing, intellectually dishonest liar who (rule10)es on the graves of 3,000 people with every DVD and barbecue apron sale.

It's unfair to accuse Hxstamper of being such a sorry excuse for a human being.

I sure am glad Balsamo is banned here so I can say exactly what I think of him, at least within rule 10.

[WildCat]

It is unprecedented to not have serial numbers documented in the event of a major air disaster. In the case of Sept 11, all 4 aircraft have never been positively identified nor documented. Unprecedented. If you need more clarification, feel free to contact us and/or the NTSB. We, as well as the NTSB have several Aircraft Accident Investigators to answer your questions.

Or, you can go here to understand the precedent...

9/11 Aircraft 'Black Box' Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=11066)

Hope this helps...
This wasn't an accident investigation, there was no need to look for parts that failed because the planes were crashed deliberately.

Not that you won't continue to lie for the "truth". :rolleyes:

[LashL]

Bump for TC. Alternatively; TLB, do you think this is a reasonable standard of evidence? Why or why not?


TC329 won't be able to respond (at least under that name) until September, at earliest, as he has earned himself a 31 day suspension (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=120172)

[WildCat]

I can see why you also have a disposable internet name, never using your own, as its clear you anticipate destroying the credibility of the one you have.
And your name is...?

Not that we don't know... :rolleyes:

[TheLoneBedouin]

Wheres your video of a fly over?
All tapes were immediately confiscated by the FBI.
Wheres your video of a plane on the north side?
Conveniently, the camera on the north side of the Citgo gas station was taken by the FBI hours after the event.
Wheres the video of people planting the light poles?
I mean they are pretty heavy and it had to take at least 2 guys to lift them.
Did nobody have a pic cell phone out in all that traffic?
The first commercial camera phone complete with infrastructure was the J-SH04, made by Sharp Corporation in 1997.
The first deployment in North America was in 2002, by Sprint.

Btw, the road was immediately blocked off by the FBI.

These are good questions to be asking, doobie. Will you join truthers in the call for the release of these videos?

[stateofgrace]

All tapes were immediately confiscated by the FBI.

Conveniently, the camera on the north side of the Citgo gas station was taken by the FBI hours after the event.


Btw, the road was immediately blocked off by the FBI.

These are good questions to be asking, doobie. Will you join truthers in the call for the release of these videos?

Are you accusing the FBI of some sort of wrong doing ?

Are you actually accusing the FBI of covering up mass murder ?

[Bobert]

Calling me a moron isn't civil and is a clear breach of the MA you signed. BTW, that still doesn't change the fact that Sanders said a pilot is a guide and that ANYBODY can be a pilot. Deal with it sockboy...
LOL so ANYBODY can claim to be a pilot in order to be a member of PFT?
That is awesome!

[TheRedWorm]

All tapes were immediately confiscated by the FBI.

Conveniently, the camera on the north side of the Citgo gas station was taken by the FBI hours after the event.


Btw, the road was immediately blocked off by the FBI.

These are good questions to be asking, doobie. Will you join truthers in the call for the release of these videos?


So you have absolutely no hard (physical) evidence of a north of Citgo path, and never have, is this correct?

[TheRedWorm]

TC329 won't be able to respond (at least under that name) until September, at earliest, as he has earned himself a 31 day suspension (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=120172)


Oh well. Actually that is a good thing, come to think of it. Now that he doesn't have to expend energy on this forum, I'm sure he'll be turning all his attention to bringing the real perps to juctice.:rolleyes:

[A W Smith]

All tapes were immediately confiscated by the FBI.

Conveniently, the camera on the north side of the Citgo gas station was taken by the FBI hours after the event.


Btw, the road was immediately blocked off by the FBI.

These are good questions to be asking, doobie. Will you join truthers in the call for the release of these videos?

Are you accusing the FBI of some sort of wrong doing ?

Are you actually accusing the FBI of covering up mass murder ?

They took the camera itself? or the video? you have Evidence the FBI took it?

[GlennB]

Conveniently, the camera on the north side of the Citgo gas station was taken by the FBI hours after the event.



Was it? If so, so what?

Like any security camera it was filming the business, not some ol' building way over there. It was filming miscreants down on the filling station forecourt, and stuff like that.

Do you get it TLB? Security cameras check on the affairs of the business.
If that camera was trained towards the Pentagon - or upwards - then it was very seriously misaligned. If so, why so?

[TheLoneBedouin]

What a way to impeach the account of anyone who doesn't already support your theory. In other words, all previously published witnesses are suspect and "potentially involved in the deception" if they disagree with your cherrypicked set of "north side" witnesses.
No, all previously published unconfirmed witnesses are suspect, whether NOC or SOC. If everyone at the Citgo gas station, ANC, and Navy annex supported the SOC, CIT would have reported that, but exactly the opposite occurred. Even your own unconfirmed 'witness reports' in the days after the attack do not support SOC- in fact, Penny Elgas and possibly Albert Hemphill support a NOC path!
For the reality is that the number of "south side" first hand witnesses interviewed by CIT is not ZERO. That magic number is achieved only by first eliminating people like Lloyd England and Stephen McGraw from the group of witnesses. Yet the reason why they are not counted is that they disagree with the so-called "north side" witnesses.
Wrong!

Lloyd England's account has been proven physically impossible. The main problem with the account is that there is no upward force to lift the pole up and spear the windshield.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2618448960fa8339b5.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13297)

For the lightpole to have speared the windshield as in England's account and as required by the physical evidence, force vectors orthogonal to the ground and parallel to the flight path are needed. Since there is nothing in the official story which can generate such a force, Lloyd's claim is a physical impossibility.

Stephen McGraw says nothing about the plane's flightpath other than coming 'right over' his car. He says he did not see any of the light poles get knocked over and in fact only seems to be aware of one light pole- the one that allegedly hit England's car. McGraw admits to having 'recovered a memory' of the plane hitting the ground before impact, which was triggered by reading other witness reports. His complete lack of awareness that 3 light poles directly in front of his parked car were knocked over by the plane compounded with his false memory of the plane skidding across the ground firmly places McGraw in the dubious witness category.

The real "bottom line" is that the physical evidence at the scene trumps whatever memories your select group of witnesses report six years later.

This is not a select group of people, Mangoose, it's everyone who could see the final moments of the plane's flight path.

Let's say you're totally right, CIT cracked the case, and the plane did indeed fly "north of the Citgo" and flew over the Pentagon, never to be seen again. Let's accept that as a historical fact. What I want to know is how the perps managed to do all this in preparation of the "attack"
There is no proof that all of your claims were caused by a 757 OR staged.

Particularly the VDOT pole and tree. No official report, witness, or official at all has suggested this is damage from the plane. When you look closely at the "scuff" on the VDOT pole it clearly looks oxidized as if it had been there for years.

Here it is from an image from 9/11 next to a scuff on a same style pole from the same area that was downed by wind:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/light%20poles/bothscuffs.jpg

comparison pole:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/light%20poles/scuffcloseup.jpg
(NOT a 9/11 pole)
The alleged "tree damage" amounts to nothing but a few discolored leaves so nothing proves this was caused by a plane and it doesn't remotely refute the unanimous testimony from all the witnesses in a position to tell placing the plane far from that pole and tree.
As for the alleged inhalation of jet fuel, we know for a fact that aviation fuel tanks were exploding "one by one" as reported by Ted Anderson:
"Nearby, tanks full of propane and aviation fuel had begun igniting, and they soon began exploding, one by one. "
http://www.newsweek.com/id/75861?tid=relatedcl
Plus we know the exploded generator trailer was spewing tons of smoke from diesel fuel for hours.
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/trailerburn.gif

Now as far as moving the generator trailer and getting other stuff ready.....

We know from Lee Evey the renovation manager that the renovation was conveniently scheduled for completion days after 9/11:

"That's the one million square feet of office space that originally held 5,000 people that we were about five days away from completing at the morning of September 11th."
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2910

We also know that on 9/10 they were moving around trailers!


"We were in the process right prior to September the 11th cleaning out the area. We just -- we moved all the trailers. Actually, on the tenth we had some other trailers that were just leaving because we were getting ready to turn it back over to the building."
source (http://aal77.com/cmh_foia/neit204.pdf)


So they could have easily unpinned the generator trailer and moved it at an angle as if they were getting ready to move it out of there.

In essence nothing they did in the area in preparation for the attack would be seen as suspicious because they had the renovation wrap up to use as the perfect cover.

Furthermore we also know from heliport air traffic controller Sean Boger that Bush had left from the heliport on 9/10 and was scheduled to return there on 9/11 at noon. He said that always caused a "dog and pony show" with Secret Service etc. So once again this together with moving around trailers and wrapping up the renovation would give them a lot of activity and a very chaotic environment the day before the event within which they could really do anything they wanted under the cover of "securing the area" for the president and/or wrapping up the renovation.

We know they evacuated everyone out (including fireman) shortly after the attack for fear of another attack coming in:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Pentagon%20folder%202/running.gif

This gave them the opportunity to plant stuff after the attack.

Answering these questions is OFF TOPIC.

There are plenty of Pentagon debate threads that go over the physical evidence.

This is about the brand new first hand witness interviews presented in the OP.

Why do you reject the corroborated testimony that was officially documented weeks after the event and independently confirmed by CIT?

If they were all wildly and drastically mistaken as you suggest they would not be saying the same thing!

[jhunter1163]

Why do you reject the corroborated testimony that was officially documented weeks after the event and independently confirmed by CIT?

BECAUSE THE WITNESS TESTIMONY IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

Maybe a bigger font will help.

[jhunter1163]

Not to mention the fact that CIT has mined those quotes so deeply that the United Quote Mine Workers has filed a complaint with OSHA.

[TheLoneBedouin]

They took the camera itself? or the video? you have Evidence the FBI took it?
Both. Yes, Barbara, the manager of the Citgo, says the FBI took the tape after they evacuated everyone and came back a couple of days later and took the camera.
See: Pentacon- Topic 8 (http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic8.htm).
Was it? If so, so what?

Like any security camera it was filming the business, not some ol' building way over there. It was filming miscreants down on the filling station forecourt, and stuff like that.

Do you get it TLB? Security cameras check on the affairs of the business.
If that camera was trained towards the Pentagon - or upwards - then it was very seriously misaligned. If so, why so?
Umm it was on the northwest corner and had a view of the Pentagon according to the station manager Barbara as reported by Russell Pickering.

Russell reported:


"The manager described this one as having had a clear view of the Pentagon wall and quite a bit north as well. You can see where the impact was and the higher angle of the camera that may have captured it."

http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=12296&view=findpost&p=7079176


Do you see Glenn how your unsupported argument is worthless yet with how much authority you asserted it as if was fact?

You did zero investigation or even analysis of the location of the camera yet you had no problem spewing pure speculation as if it was fact.

Please stick to critical thinking principles and address the independent verifiable evidence presented in the OP with evidence to refute it. Not speculation or faulty logic.

[jhunter1163]

I remember a video taken from a car on 395 (I think) that would almost surely have shown the flyover plane if it existed. In fact, the flyover plane would have passed almost directly over the car. Does anyone else remember this video?

[TheLoneBedouin]

Not to mention the fact that CIT has mined those quotes so deeply that the United Quote Mine Workers has filed a complaint with OSHA.
Evidence?
BECAUSE THE WITNESS TESTIMONY IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.
Apparently you didn't read my post- since it is completely consistent with the physical evidence. The only witness interviewed by CIT whose account is inconsistent with the physical evidence is Lloyd England. A very important question to ask yourself:

If the citgo witnesses were a strange coincidental fluke can you honestly continue to tell yourself that this fluke has been repeated 9 more times from different perspectives while not a single independently confirmed south side account exists?

[Bobert]

TLB,
Since you are obviously a member of the CIT or a close associate.....
When will you be bringing the evidence to a court?
What do you think of sooo many CT sites abandoning the CIT?

[TheRedWorm]

All tapes were immediately confiscated by the FBI.

Conveniently, the camera on the north side of the Citgo gas station was taken by the FBI hours after the event.


Btw, the road was immediately blocked off by the FBI.

These are good questions to be asking, doobie. Will you join truthers in the call for the release of these videos?


So you have absolutely no hard (physical) evidence of a north of Citgo path, and never have, is this correct?


Can you answer this?

[TheLoneBedouin]

So you have absolutely no hard (physical) evidence of a north of Citgo path, and never have, is this correct?
No videos of the plane have been released showing the plane on either the north or south side of the citgo. They were all immediately confiscated by the FBI. One would think that if the official story were true, we should be able to see the Citgo, Sheraton, and Pentagon footage. Why did they confiscate the camera on the North side of the Citgo station? It ain't because the plane flew on the official flight path.
As for the wide loop over the Potomac as reported by Middleton and Chaconas, there is an abundance of radar data and witness testimony of a jet over D.C. skies. Both of these parts of the flight path are fatal to the official story.
Can you answer my question, Redworm?

If the citgo witnesses were a strange coincidental fluke can you honestly continue to tell yourself that this fluke has been repeated 9 more times from different perspectives while not a single independently confirmed south side account exists?

[Arus808]

No videos of the plane have been released showing the plane on either the north or south side of the citgo.

absolutely false. Video of the plane has been shown, and it shows the plane hitting the pentagon, on the approach that it has been attributed to.

btw, videos are NOT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE


You were asked numerous times: please provide PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that the plane flew north of citgo.

[~enigma~]

please provide PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that the plane flew north of citgo.
And the plane also...

[TheRedWorm]

So no, you have no physical evidence of a north of Citgo path. Now that that's out of the way...

No videos of the plane have been released showing the plane on either the north or south side of the citgo.
Yes, that ties into the no physical evidence for your theory statement. However, there is video that shows flight 77 impacting the Pentagon. A north of Citgo path would make this impact impossible. Therefore, we have (at least circumstantial) video of a south of Citgo path

They were all immediately confiscated by the FBI. One would think that if the official story were true, we should be able to see the Citgo, Sheraton, and Pentagon footage. Why did they confiscate the camera on the North side of the Citgo station?

Evidence that the FBI did confiscate (the camera itself, or just the footage?) Even given that, have you filed attempted to contact anyone in the FBI to get their side of the story? In the same vane, do know one way or the other the orientation of the camera (basically, north or south, would the camera be able to pick up the crash?)


It ain't because the plane flew on the official flight path.

Assertions are not evidence.

As for the wide loop over the Potomac as reported by Middleton and Chaconas, there is an abundance of radar data and witness testimony of a jet over D.C. skies. Both of these parts of the flight path are fatal to the official story.

Again, assertions are not evidence.

Can you answer my question, Redworm?

If the citgo witnesses were a strange coincidental fluke can you honestly continue to tell yourself that this fluke has been repeated 9 more times from different perspectives while not a single independently confirmed south side account exists?


Well, from what I have seen, any evidence to the contrary is dismissed out of hand, and CIT refuses to interview all the witnesses, AND they have yet to release their interviews unedited. Having said that, in another thread, Ron posted accounts from the Titanic. When you understand why I bring that up, you will understand why I trust physical evidence more than eyewitness accounts.

[TheLoneBedouin]

You were asked numerous times: please provide PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that the plane flew north of citgo.
And the plane also...
Then you both support a new investigation? This is the only way such evidence can be obtained.

[~enigma~]

You were asked numerous times: please provide PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that the plane flew north of citgo.
Why does this say plane when I quote it but the post reads plan??????

[~enigma~]

Then you both support a new investigation? This is the only way such evidence can be obtained.
Where did I say anything about an investigation? Learn how to read.

[TheLoneBedouin]

Where did I say anything about an investigation? Learn how to read.
So how would your request be met without a new investigation?

[~enigma~]

So how would your request be met without a new investigation?
Who was asked? Do you know how to read or are you proving that all truthers are stupid?

[pomeroo]

Then you both support a new investigation? This is the only way such evidence can be obtained.


No rationalists support a new investigation as it is impossible to produce new physical evidence. The remains of the passengers and crew of AA Flight 77 were found inside the Pentagon and identified by DNA testing. Nothing can possibly supersede this finding. The wreckage of the plane was found inside the building and on the lawn. Where do you propose looking for "new" evidence"?

Yes, researchers who are honest and competent can (and will) expose the frauds of the CIT by resolving the mutually exclusive claims supposedly made by a tiny handful of witnesses. All their efforts will accomplish is to demonstrate, redundantly, what liars the fantasists are.

Your refusal to address the issue of the Titantic survivors who insisted that they observed something that didn't happen exposes your deception.

[pomeroo]

No, all previously published unconfirmed witnesses are suspect, whether NOC or SOC. If everyone at the Citgo gas station, ANC, and Navy annex supported the SOC, CIT would have reported that, but exactly the opposite occurred. Even your own unconfirmed 'witness reports' in the days after the attack do not support SOC- in fact, Penny Elgas and possibly Albert Hemphill support a NOC path!

Wrong!

Lloyd England's account has been proven physically impossible. The main problem with the account is that there is no upward force to lift the pole up and spear the windshield.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2618448960fa8339b5.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13297)

For the lightpole to have speared the windshield as in England's account and as required by the physical evidence, force vectors orthogonal to the ground and parallel to the flight path are needed. Since there is nothing in the official story which can generate such a force, Lloyd's claim is a physical impossibility.


When you frauds and liars start tossing off your favorite rhetorical ploys, you confirm everyone's suspicions that you understand yourselves to be peddling snake oil. It is, of course, perfectly possible that a commercial airliner moving at over 400mph snapped off a light pole like a twig and sent it flying and bouncing. Why the hell should it be impossible, you silly charlatan? Who could take such utter crap seriously?

Lloyd England will have his day in court.

[~enigma~]

No rationalists support a new investigation as it is impossible to produce new physical evidence. The remains of the passengers and crew of AA Flight 77 were found inside the Pentagon and identified by DNA testing. Nothing can possibly supersede this finding. The wreckage of the plane was found inside the building and on the lawn. Where do you propose looking for "new" evidence"?

Yes, researchers who are honest and competent can (and will) expose the frauds of the CIT by resolving the mutually exclusive claims supposedly made by a tiny handful of witnesses. All their efforts will accomplish is to demonstrate, redundantly, what liars the fantasists are.

Your refusal to address the issue of the Titantic survivors who insisted that they observed something that didn't happen exposes your deception.
He is just trying to prove that all truthers and in particular those from CIT and Guides Who Lie are a bunch of morons. Guess you can call me anti-trutheric :)

[Bobert]

Then you both support a new investigation? This is the only way such evidence can be obtained.
The CIT HARDY BOYS are beyond this. According to them there is NO NEED for a new investigation because they have SMOKING GUN evidence!
No get the evidence to a court and STFU already.

[Mr. Skinny]

Not to mention the fact that CIT has mined those quotes so deeply that the United Quote Mine Workers has filed a complaint with OSHA.
Mine workers fall under the jurisdiction of the Mine Safety and Health Act/Administration (MSHA)

[TheLoneBedouin]

Who was asked?
You asked me for "the plane". So how would your request be met without a new investigation?

[Arus808]

Then you both support a new investigation? This is the only way such evidence can be obtained.

wow, reading comprehension, you failed didn't you?

[Arus808]

You asked me for "the plane". So how would your request be met without a new investigation?

no, you fail at reading comprehension, which seems to show amongst many truthers, its seems


You and your cohorts have FACTUALLY stated that the plane flew "NORTH" of Citgo, then you must ALREADY have that evidence. SO provide that evidence, or admit that you guys are lying.

[~enigma~]

You asked me for "the plane". So how would your request be met without a new investigation?
That is your problem since you claim it was NOC. So you now have come to a crossroad. Either prove your stupid NOC claim or STFU.

[TheLoneBedouin]

When you frauds and liars start tossing off your favorite rhetorical ploys, you confirm everyone's suspicions that you understand yourselves to be peddling snake oil.
Since when is physics a 'rhetorical ploy'.
It is, of course, perfectly possible that a commercial airliner moving at over 400mph snapped off a light pole like a twig and sent it flying and bouncing.
You cannot send something 'flying' without a force opposing gravity. If you disagree with me, explain what force in the official story opposes the gravitational pull on the pole?

[TheRedWorm]

So no, you have no physical evidence of a north of Citgo path. Now that that's out of the way...
...
...
Yes, that ties into the no physical evidence for your theory statement. However, there is video that shows flight 77 impacting the Pentagon. A north of Citgo path would make this impact impossible. Therefore, we have (at least circumstantial) video of a south of Citgo path
...
...
...
Evidence that the FBI did confiscate (the camera itself, or just the footage?) Even given that, have you filed attempted to contact anyone in the FBI to get their side of the story? In the same vane, do know one way or the other the orientation of the camera (basically, north or south, would the camera be able to pick up the crash?)
...
...
...
...
Assertions are not evidence.
...
...
...
Again, assertions are not evidence.
...
...
...
...
Well, from what I have seen, any evidence to the contrary is dismissed out of hand, and CIT refuses to interview all the witnesses, AND they have yet to release their interviews unedited. Having said that, in another thread, Ron posted accounts from the Titanic. When you understand why I bring that up, you will understand why I trust physical evidence more than eyewitness accounts.


Any response, TLB?

[TheLoneBedouin]

You and your cohorts have FACTUALLY stated that the plane flew "NORTH" of Citgo
Evidence?

[~enigma~]

Since when is physics a 'rhetorical ploy'.

You cannot send something 'flying' without a force opposing gravity. If you disagree with me, explain what force in the official story opposes the gravitational pull on the pole?
If you were sitting on the pole as it got hit, would you have fell straight down or sent for a fun ride? Learn physics before you spout nonsense.

[~enigma~]

Evidence?
That's what we are asking. Where is your evidence?

[Minadin]

The CIT HARDLY BOYS are beyond this. According to them there is NO NEED for a new investigation because they have SMOKING GUN evidence!
No get the evidence to a court and STFU already.

Fixed your spelling error there, Bobert . . . :D

[Hokulele]

You and your cohorts have FACTUALLY stated that the plane flew "NORTH" of Citgo...

Evidence?


Evidence.

The north side evidence is not a theory.

[Jonnyclueless]

It's so funny how Dom, TLB, and the other kids are very selective about what posts they respond to isn't it?

So kids, what did the police say when you showed them your evidence? What did the media news say when you presented the "validated evidence?"

[jhunter1163]

Apparently you didn't read my post- since it is completely consistent with the physical evidence.

No, it isn't. The whole NoC idiocy is based on the idea that the flight path of the plane isn't consistent with the damage path. The damage path is consistent with SoC, not NoC.

If the citgo witnesses were a strange coincidental fluke can you honestly continue to tell yourself that this fluke has been repeated 9 more times from different perspectives while not a single independently confirmed south side account exists?

Since CIT will accept no SoC account as "independently confirmed", there's really no point in arguing this.

[johnny karate]

TheLoneBedouin, why have only you and a handful of Internet sleuths been able to perceive the irregularities in the flight path of UA175? Why has every single professional investigator and law enforcement official on the entire planet failed to discern and/or reveal this startling and obvious information?

[TheLoneBedouin]

So no, you have no physical evidence of a north of Citgo path.
So what? There's unanimous witness testimony of a NOC path and numerous physical evidence that the SOC path is impossible.
However, there is video that shows flight 77 impacting the Pentagon.
It doesn't show flight 77- it shows a blob, is missing a frame, and then an explosion. Pier Murru has proven the video is manipulated. His conclusion:
CONCLUSION

If a slight compatibility exists between frame 20-Cam1 and visual representation of B757-200 this gives more value to the incoherence with the same frame of Cam2 that instead does not absolutely show anything of compatible with B757-200 and with all technical context that has produced these frames. If now we put these last analysis inside the entire relation between the two cameras the scenario is confused and absolutely not reliable from any point of view. If on Cam1 there is no evidence but a minimal compatibility (not with a B757 but with a smaller emitter), on Cam2 lack both. The incompatibility is present on the plane representation and on the coherence with the system that has generated the footage sequence. Many variables that have been always absolutely identical and compatible between hundred of braces of frames stop to be identical inside a single brace of frames generating an obvious demonstration of manipulation/omission. This happens on frames where it would have had to be present the plane. The two footage are not in the position to demonstrate nothing if their intrinsic tendency to hide the emitter in two totally different ways. I want to specify that this report is the result of analyses made on all the frames of the two sequences. I have analyzed frame by frame hundreds of frames, making careful analysis on them under many points of view. Even if these footages can appear insignificant for their low quality and resolution are from today to be considered the only shot test of a crash of B757-200 released from the DoD from September 2001. The analysis made on the sequences have to be seriously considered for the importance that footages have had inside the official version and more recently in the trial against Zacarias Moussaoui
http://web.archive.org/web/20070319232445/http://www.immagine.it/pierpaolomurru/reportdod/site/eng_version/
Evidence that the FBI did confiscate (the camera itself, or just the footage?)
Already given.
Even given that, have you filed attempted to contact anyone in the FBI to get their side of the story?
Cit has contacted the FBI, only to be stonewalled. So has PFT. Apparently these questions are inconvenient for them.
In the same vane, do know one way or the other the orientation of the camera (basically, north or south, would the camera be able to pick up the crash?)
It was in the northwest corner and had a perfect view of the Pentagon.
Assertions are not evidence
Here is the evidence (http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=116).
Well, from what I have seen, any evidence to the contrary is dismissed out of hand
Examples?
and CIT refuses to interview all the witnesses
Provide the quote.
AND they have yet to release their interviews unedited.
So?
Having said that, in another thread, Ron posted accounts from the Titanic. When you understand why I bring that up, you will understand why I trust physical evidence more than eyewitness accounts.
The titanic is not at all like the attack on the Pentagon. Hopefully you are smart enough that I don't again have to explain why.

[TheLoneBedouin]

TheLoneBedouin, why have only you and a handful of Internet sleuths been able to perceive the irregularities in the flight path of UA175? Why has every single professional investigator and law enforcement official on the entire planet failed to discern and/or reveal this startling and obvious information?
I haven't studied UA175.

[TheLoneBedouin]

The north side evidence is not a theory.
does not equal
You and your cohorts have FACTUALLY stated that the plane flew "NORTH" of Citgo...

[Hokulele]

does not equal


So it is not a theory, not a fact. What is it then? Speculation? Fantasizing? Wishful thinking? Merely an assertion? Completely worthless?

[TheLoneBedouin]

If you were sitting on the pole as it got hit, would you have fell straight down or sent for a fun ride?
You would fall in an arc to the ground- you certainly wouldn't fly. Maybe you should stick to lawyerin' and leave the physics to the rest of us.

[Reheat]

Maybe you should stick to lawyerin' and leave the physics to the rest of us.

Speaking of physics, got a flight path yet?

[TheRedWorm]

So what? There's unanimous witness testimony of a NOC path and numerous physical evidence that the SOC path is impossible.


Unanimous implies all. You have, at most, 13. This is not even in the same area code as all.
It doesn't show flight 77- it shows a blob, is missing a frame, and then an explosion. Pier Murru has proven the video is manipulated. His conclusion:

This is one person's opinion. And unless he can show me the unaltered version of said video, or evidence of same, his claims are idle speculation.

Cit has contacted the FBI, only to be stonewalled. So has PFT.
Stonewalled how? Didi you just ask for the information, or did you imply that they were in on it? Sometimes, it is not what you ask, but how you ask it.

Apparently these questions are inconvenient for them.

Again, refer to the quote above, but let me ask you one question to demonstrate this effect. Someone asks you if you still molest people, do you ignore him, punch him, or try to answer the question in a qay that shows the person respect?

So?

So?!?!?! Are you kidding me? There is no clue as to what questions were actually asked, and what answers were actually given, and all you can say is So? Doesn't it bother you that the CIT is not giving all of the story? Doesn't it bother you that the CIT does not interview all that are involved, including the first responders that handled debris and body parts? Doesn't it bother you that the CIT says that the plane flew north of the Citgo station without any physical evidence, yet demands an incredible amount of evidence for the generally accepted series of events? Doesn't it bother you that no witness actually saw a flyover?

If the answer to ANY of these is no, then I am at a loss for words.

The titanic is not at all like the attack on the Pentagon. Hopefully you are smart enough that I don't again have to explain why.

Assume I am not, and explain, if you please.

[WildCat]

There's unanimous witness testimony of a NOC path and numerous physical evidence that the SOC path is impossible.
The bolded part is a lie.

[TheLoneBedouin]

So it is not a theory, not a fact. What is it then?
Cit has factually stated that North of the Citgo is where all the witnesses place the plane, hence:
The North side evidence is not a theory
Whether or not you accept that level of proof (i.e. unanimous witness testimony) as proof of a NOC path is left up to the viewer, though it is made clear that that is the reasonable conclusion. What is absolutely a fact is that the OCT is completely false.

[jhunter1163]

The bolded part is a lie.

So is the unbolded part, actually.

[Hokulele]

Cit has factually stated that North of the Citgo is where all the witnesses place the plane...


Ah, so it is hearsay then. Got it.

[Hokulele]

You would fall in an arc to the ground- you certainly wouldn't fly. Maybe you should stick to lawyerin' and leave the physics to the rest of us.


Wait, what? How does momentum work in your world?

[jhunter1163]

Cit has factually stated that North of the Citgo is where all the witnesses except the 100 or so you dismiss place the plane, hence:

Whether or not you accept that level of proof (i.e. unanimous witness testimony) as proof of a NOC path is left up to the viewer, though it is made clear that that is the reasonable conclusion. What is absolutely a fact is that the OCT is completely false.

Fixed. Also, you keep using that word "unanimous". I do not think it means what you think it means.

[A W Smith]

You would fall in an arc to the ground- you certainly wouldn't fly. Maybe you should stick to lawyerin' and leave the physics to the rest of us.

Excuse me. Are you a software salesman or a physicist?

Explain to us why a brake away light pole when hit above two thirds of its height should fall over like a tree and not pinwheel around its mass?

[TheLoneBedouin]

Fixed. Also, you keep using that word "unanimous". I do not think it means what you think it means.
On the contrary, I know precisely what it means. Could these so-called "hundreds" of witnesses all see the final moments of the flight path?

[WildCat]

So is the unbolded part, actually.
You are correct!

[jhunter1163]

On the contrary, I know precisely what it means. Could these so-called "hundreds" of witnesses all see the final moments of the flight path?

As a matter of fact, many of them (including CIT's 13 prize witnesses) COULD see the final moments of the flight path, which ended with the plane hitting the Pentagon.

[TheLoneBedouin]

Explain to us why a brake away light pole when hit above two thirds of its height should fall over like a tree and not pinwheel around its mass?
Explain what you mean by "falling like a pinwheel around its mass". Video examples? Pics? You do agree that the pole certainly wouldn't fly, right?

[A W Smith]

Explain what you mean by "falling like a pinwheel around its mass". Video examples? Pics? You do agree that the pole certainly wouldn't fly, right?


Don't need a video. Put a stick in the ground and swat it with a baseball bat hitting it in the top third. get back to me,



<edit toi add> And don't swing at it like a litle girl either to try and prove your point.

[TheLoneBedouin]

As a matter of fact, many of them (including CIT's 13 prize witnesses) COULD see the final moments of the flight path, which ended with the plane hitting the Pentagon.
So you agree that all those who could see the final moments of the flight path place the plane on the North side? How do you explain this?

[jhunter1163]

So you agree that all those who could see the final moments of the flight path place the plane on the North side? How do you explain this?

Can you point me to where I said that the final moments of the flight path were on the north side? That was YOUR assumption, and has been all along. This is why it's pointless to argue this with you; you assume what you intend to prove.

[WildCat]

Could these so-called "hundreds" of witnesses all see the final moments of the flight path?
Funny you mentioned the people who saw the final moments of the flight path! All of them say it was Flight 77 and that it hit the Pentagon.

Zero people described a flyover.

Big problem for CIT. Oh, that and the physical evidence... so on the bright side except for the eyewitness and physical evidence everything points to NoC and a flyover! :p

[~enigma~]

You would fall in an arc to the ground- you certainly wouldn't fly. Maybe you should stick to lawyerin' and leave the physics to the rest of us.
I'm a lawyer??? Your a nutcase if you think i'm a lawyer. You would fall in an arc.....you mean you wouldn't even reach 1 meter higher elevation from a plane traveling at that speed? Baloney and if you don't believe me, prove me wrong by showing me a video. I'll let you substitute a block of metal for yourself. As I said, learn physics before you spout your stupidity.

[WildCat]

And don't swing at it like a litle girl either to try and prove your point.
I bet Craig Ranke couldn't hit it any other way. Maybe TLB has better stuff!

[TheLoneBedouin]

Ah, so it is hearsay then. Got it.
Hearsay definitely doesn't have the meaning you just ascribed to it.

[John Blonn]

Since you're so good at physics, I'd like to see some relevant calculations, re: the light pole. Also, calculations about the possibility of a flyover at that speed. Oh, and a flight path.

Or does your see saw analogy render the need for calculations moot?

Also, you know what else has been 'independently corroborated' by the witnesses?

That the plane hit the Pentagon!

I'm not saying this. It's not a theory, of course, or a 'fact.' It's a belief according to your standard of evidence. It's "what the witnesses say."

Funny how we have to take the witnesses beliefs as gospel, as unchallengeable, when we're talking about flight paths, but of course their observations about the plane hitting the Pentagon are completely incorrect and challengeable, eh?

[TheLoneBedouin]

Put a stick in the ground and swat it with a baseball bat hitting it in the top third. get back to me,
Done, but the neighbors looked at me weird. Couldn't get the thing to fly in the air like a javelin.
:rolleyes:

[~enigma~]

Done, but the neighbors looked at me weird. Couldn't get the thing to fly in the air like a javelin.
:rolleyes:
And did it weakly fall over? We don't care what didn't happen, what happened? BTW, I don't believe you did it.

[bje]

It's a undisputed fact that there are no eyewitnesses that have ever come forward from anywhere beyond the Pentagon that claim to have seen a low-flying, twin engine, passenger-size jet, come screaming over their heads after the massive explosion at the Pentagon. It doesn't matter what freaking flight path CIT claims - they have absolutely NO eyewitnesses, none, zero, nada.

And there would necessarily be hundreds upon hundreds of eyewitnesses.

[Bobert]

Fixed your spelling error there, Bobert . . . :D
Thanks!
:)

[Bobert]

It's a undisputed fact that there are no eyewitnesses that have ever come forward from anywhere beyond the Pentagon that claim to have seen a low-flying, twin engine, passenger-size jet, come screaming over their heads after the massive explosion at the Pentagon. It doesn't matter what freaking flight path CIT claims - they have absolutely NO eyewitnesses, none, zero, nada.

And there would necessarily be hundreds upon hundreds of eyewitnesses.
I am blond so call me crazy but gee you would think one would remember A FRIGGIN HUGE PLANE PULLING UP AND OVER THE PENTAGON!!!!!!
Where does the CIT mental illness stem from?

[Bobert]

BTW can someone grab a screencap of Craig with his half unbuttoned shirt from their latest video?
I dont know how to do it and I need the pic for a poll that I would like to conduct on the humor forum.
Thanks in advance!!
:)

[TheLoneBedouin]

It's a undisputed fact that there are no eyewitnesses that have ever come forward from anywhere beyond the Pentagon that claim to have seen a low-flying, twin engine, passenger-size jet, come screaming over their heads after the massive explosion at the Pentagon. It doesn't matter what freaking flight path CIT claims - they have absolutely NO eyewitnesses, none, zero, nada.
Here is a quote from before CIT has started their investigation:
http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk233/Janusaur/flyoverwitness.jpg
This quote is equivalent to Gravy's anonymous witnesses he uses to inflate the light pole/ impact witnesses. In any case, anonymous witnesses are unnecessary since Roosevelt Roberts reports the jet over the Pentagon immediately after impact and banking away to the North.
Have you even seen the presentation?
Why is do you feel Roosevelt is an unreliable witness?

[Hokulele]

Hearsay definitely doesn't have the meaning you just ascribed to it.


In which case evidence does not have the meaning you have been using all along.

[A W Smith]

The alleged "tree damage" amounts to nothing but a few discolored leaves so nothing proves this was caused by a plane and it doesn't remotely refute the unanimous testimony from all the witnesses in a position to tell placing the plane far from that pole and tree.


I have to step back two or three pages to address this particular idiocy.
Discolored a few leaves?

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/pentagonrt24tree.jpg


Now look at the debris from that tree on the highway after ejection through the turbines of that engine

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

And whats all this green substance surrounding Lloyd's taxi? If it were allegedly planted during the night why didn't morning traffic blow this leafy substance away?

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

[Stellafane]

The bolded part is a lie.

Ah, but you see, that doesn't matter anymore in Trutherland. We've entered the era of Anything Goes, where you can say anything at all, however divorced from reality and logic it may be. I'm King of Bavaria, I have six arms, I discovered the Moon -- it doesn't matter how obviously nonsensical the utterance, it's all fair game. In this special little world, tiny minorities represents unanimity, evidence is whatever you say it is, and having no eyewitness see a flyover proves one happened. It's kind of funny, but scary at the same time, because I can't even imagine what the next stage of Trutherdom will be.

[WildCat]

BTW can someone grab a screencap of Craig with his half unbuttoned shirt from their latest video?
I dont know how to do it and I need the pic for a poll that I would like to conduct on the humor forum.
Thanks in advance!!
:)
Here ya go!

http://home.mindspring.com/~a.lo/aldo_craig.jpg

[Reheat]

And whats all this green substance surrounding Lloyd's taxi? If it were allegedly planted during the night why didn't morning traffic blow this leafy substance away?

Huh Oh! More people in on the conspiracy. Now we have leaf planters, glass planters as well as pole planters! My, my, how did they not get run over with all of that traffic on the highway?

I know, I know, please call on me.... They had people in cars with glass and leaves in their pockets and poles in their trunk.... uh, now how to explain those poles in the truck of a car? That's a tough one. I'm sure TLB has the answer tho'.

[nicepants]

The bolded part is a lie.

Actually, it's quite possible that Craig just doesn't know what that word means.

On the contrary, I know precisely what it means.

Well, then, Craig is lying, either when he states that all witnesses unanimously place the plane north of the citgo, or when he states that he knows the meaning of the word "unanimous". At this point I'm not sure which is more likely.

[Bobert]

Oh man!
I cant get over how no one said a word to Craig about his shirt being half unbuttoned.
Look at Aldo he looks like he just ate some bad Mexican.













Mexican food that is!

[WildCat]

This quote is equivalent to Gravy's anonymous witnesses he uses to inflate the light pole/ impact witnesses.
:dl:

[johnny karate]

I haven't studied UA175.

My mistake. Allow me to rephrase:

Why have only you and a handful of Internet sleuths been able to perceive the irregularities in the flight path of AA77? Why has every single professional investigator and law enforcement official on the entire planet failed to discern and/or reveal this startling and obvious information?

[TheLoneBedouin]

Unanimous implies all. You have, at most, 13. This is not even in the same area code as all.
Unanimous means all the people who were in a position to see whether the plane flew north or south of the citgo. They all place the plane on the north side, including several people who wouldn't have been able to see the plane at all on the official flight path. This is an extraordinary fact that is inexplicable in light of the official narrative.
This is one person's opinion. And unless he can show me the unaltered version of said video, or evidence of same, his claims are idle speculation.
Not opinion- expert analysis. Apparently you didn't read the site- he used both videos of the crash and found inconsistencies. This isn't speculation.
tonewalled how? Didi you just ask for the information, or did you imply that they were in on it?
Obviously the former.
So?!?!?! Are you kidding me? There is no clue as to what questions were actually asked, and what answers were actually given, and all you can say is So?
There are no 'cut scenes' in these videos. The questions are plainly stated and the answers are immediately given. In fact, all of the witnesses previous testimony agree with CIT's interviews with the exception of Brooks who admits he deduced the plane impacting the light poles.
Doesn't it bother you that the CIT does not interview all that are involved, including the first responders that handled debris and body parts?
You just repeated that when I asked you for a source, so... SOURCE?????
Doesn't it bother you that the CIT says that the plane flew north of the Citgo station without any physical evidence, yet demands an incredible amount of evidence for the generally accepted series of events?
CIT doesn't say the plane flew NOC, the witnesses do. The official narrative has been proven impossible through many lines of evidence.
Doesn't it bother you that no witness actually saw a flyover?
Wrong. Why do you feel Roosevelt Roberts, pentagon police officer, isn't a credible witness?
Assume I am not, and explain, if you please.
Already explained earlier in the thread. The sinking of the titanic was an extremely chaotic event with the witnesses literally fighting for their lives and the lives of their families highlighted by such events as the instant shooting of those who disobeyed orders about who could go on a lifeboat and who couldn't, the separation of family members, the frequent throwing of certain people (e.g. third class people) overboard once they finally got on a lifeboat, the questions as to the fate of family members, the frantic pleas to rescue those who were unaware the ship was sinking or who were trapped, etc. It is also unknown to what extant the survivors spoke with one another about what they saw and therefore influenced what they 'remembered'.
The flaw of the argument is clear once you consider the fact that all those in a position to see the gas station place the plane on the North side, whereas the titanic witnesses are split.

[WildCat]

This is an extraordinary fact
Here's an extraordinary fact: all 13 of your witnesses believe the plane they saw was Flight 77 and that it hit the Pentagon.

[~enigma~]

Oh man!
I cant get over how no one said a word to Craig about his shirt being half unbuttoned.
Wow...Craig looks like he's ready to scratch someone's eyes out. Not that there is anything wrong with being....eh....what's the PC word....effeminate :)

ETA - Him and Alpo are a cute couple...

[Stellafane]

Unanimous means all the people who were in a position to see whether the plane flew north or south of the citgo. They all place the plane on the north side, including several people who wouldn't have been able to see the plane at all on the official flight path. This is an extraordinary fact that is inexplicable in light of the official narrative...

No, you can't do this. You can't pick out the tiny majority who seem to support one tiny molecule of your claim, and insist they're the only ones that matter. I know you really, really want to make your little group of 13 special in some way, but you can't simply pronounce them so. Reality doesn't work like this, and no sane person is going to buy it.

This is my final word in this thread, so I close with what I know is a forlorn hope, but one I feel somewhat obligated to attempt: Can't you see how insane this all is? You have nothing, less than nothing, and any rational person can see it. You will never acomplish anything here, no matter how hard and how long you try, because you have nothing to bring to the table except claims so ridiculous that even your fellow Truthers (the most receptive and sympathetic audience you'll ever have) have rejected them. I don't know what your life is like, but no matter what this is not the way to spend it.

[TheLoneBedouin]

Since you're so good at physics, I'd like to see some relevant calculations, re: the light pole.
This is extremely off-topic, but I think Mike Wilson does ok in modeling roughly the interaction with the light poles. None of those poles were thrown like a javelin. Do you seriously suggest they would be?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

[John Blonn]

This is extremely off-topic, but I think Mike Wilson does ok in modeling roughly the interaction with the light poles. None of those poles were thrown like a javelin. Do you seriously suggest they would be?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

You're using a video that supports the South side flight path to (in part) help you debunk a south side flight path? :confused:

Does Mike Wilson do 'ok' in modeling the actual flight path? Or in this is he disinfo?

[Stellafane]

Wow...Craig looks like he's ready to scratch someone's eyes out. Not that there is anything wrong with being....eh....what's the PC word....effeminate :)

ETA - Him and Alpo are a cute couple...

I dunno. Seeing pictures of the smirking LC hucksters, scamming little boys out of all the money they can steal from their mom's purses, makes me feel like they deserve all the feces that gets thrown their way. But seeing the two CIT boys makes me feel something more akin to sadness, maybe even sympathy, because what I see here are two young people, desperate for significance and attention, who really believe in something that no remotely sane person should give a moment's serious consideration. Two boys utterly wasting their lives, and seemingly oblivious to it.

[~enigma~]

I dunno. Seeing pictures of the smirking LC hucksters, scamming little boys out of all the money they can steal from their mom's purses, makes me feel like they deserve all the feces that gets thrown their way. But seeing the two CIT boys makes me feel something more akin to sadness, maybe even sympathy, because what I see here are two young people, desperate for significance and attention, who really believe in something that no remotely sane person should give a moment's serious consideration. Two boys utterly wasting their lives, and seemingly oblivious to it.Hate to say it but you are hitting the nail directly on the head. Craig does look like he's ready to scratch somone's eyes out but the site of both of them together is nothing short of pathetic. I actually feel pity for them both.

[A W Smith]

Cit has factually stated that North of the Citgo is where all the witnesses place the plane, hence:

Whether or not you accept that level of proof (i.e. unanimous witness testimony) as proof of a NOC path is left up to the viewer, though it is made clear that that is the reasonable conclusion. What is absolutely a fact is that the OCT is completely false.


No not ALL of them. You have attempted to disqualifiy many other witnesses to elevate your own 13 to a higher level of credibility. This is a Special Pleading logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading) and it wont wash here.

[TheLoneBedouin]

You have attempted to disqualifiy many other witnesses to elevate your own 13 to a higher level of credibility.
All of the witness in a position to see have placed the plane NOC. Why is the physical impossibility of Lloyd's account not a relevant difference between the witness accounts? If that's not relevant, what is?

[TheLoneBedouin]

You're using a video that supports the South side flight path to (in part) help you debunk a south side flight path?
Yes, an 'official theory' supporter debunking Lloyd England's account. None of the poles were thrown like a javelin. Do you seriously suggest they would be?
If so, what's wrong with Wilson's modeling of the light pole interaction with the plane?
If not, how do you explain England's story?
Is England a liar?

[LashL]

All of the witness in a position to see have placed the plane NOC.


This is complete and utter nonsense, bordering on delusional. Here's an idea: tell your Crazy and conspiratorial Inept "investigatory" Team pals to take their *cough* "evidence" to law enforcement agencies or media outlets if they actually believe their own crap.

Certainly, nobody here with two or more arcing braincells believes their nonsense, and you're just wasting bandwidth by promoting their nonsense here.

[Mangoose]

The evidence presented in the OP proves military deception. This means that many people lied and that many people are implicated by the evidence including Zackhem and certainly Lloyd.


No, no such thing has been proven. Let's take a look at CIT's track record. The original witnesses interviewed for the Pentacon were not unamimously reporting flight paths interpretable as along the "north side" of the Citgo. Some could be classed as "north side" and others could be classed as "south side". That's the variation to be expected in eyewitness recollections. But as I showed in a number of cases already in this thread, CIT omitted all the "south side" witnesses they interviewed from the body of "valid" evidence because they contradicted the "north side" witnesses. Their reasoning was explicitly that no witness would report the plane on the "south side" since the "north side" witnesses already establish that the plane was the "north side", so the "south side" witnesses are all liars (and therefore not even to be counted as witnesses). So with that reasoning, no witness could ever be a "south side" witness and as a result, the total number of "south side" witnesses would always be ZERO.

Any reasonably intelligent person can see the hasty generalization and circular reasoning involved here. Real investigations collect an adequate and representative sample of evidence and THEN evaluate it to come up with hypotheses (if, say, in the case of a pilot study) or conclusions. But before the evaluation of the collected evidence takes place, CIT has already expunged people like Zackem, England, McGraw, etc. from the evidence pool by rendering them as non-witnesses for not conforming to the "north side" claim. What was supposed to be a conclusion determined by impartially assessing the evidence has therefore become a premise for determining what can be included as evidence in the first place. That allows CIT to "stack the deck" and create the appearance of unanimity when agreement is far less obvious.

Such fallacious reasoning can only be too transparent, so CIT tried to buttress their villification of the "south side" witnesses through ad hominem (Ms. Zackem is a crypto-Joo, Mr. McGraw is a Catholic priest with presumably Opus Dei connections, Mr. England reads David Icke and he possibly is an accomplice in mass murder) and through criticism over details of their recollections. What is important about the latter is the blatant double standard (special pleading) at work. Nit-picks like whether Zackem or Sucherman or whoever could see the plane at its final moment crashing into the building with trees in the way, or whether Lloyd England correctly remembered the way the pole went through his windshield, are supposed to support the conclusion that these witnesses are unreliable (= lying) about the plane being on the "south side" path at all. And yet if the witness happens to be a "north side" witness, all of a sudden an entirely different, more reasonable attitude is taken. In the case of an observation that George Aman makes that Craig Ranke thinks was not possible, he asks in the video linked in the OP: "Now does this discredit him, does this make you think this is no way he could be an honest person?" If he were a "south side" witness, the presumed answer would be YES since in practice that is how they are regarded. But for someone prized as a "north side" witness, the answer is: "Well, deduction and embellishment is a typical eyewitness tendency for innocent eyewitnesses." So no, he still counts as a valid witness. In the case of some of the other "north side" witnesses, Ranke also says: "You can't expect them to be perfectly accurate and we don't, we know that eyewitness testimony is fallible in many ways and we expect that". And Aldo concurs: "Obviously memory is not going to be 100% accurate on those little finite details they're not computers, they do not have a photographic lens built into their brain or their eyes, they're estimating." But the same benefit of the doubt is never afforded to the "south side" witnesses, who naturally corroborate each other in placing the plane's path more to the south. The mutual corroboration of the "north side" witnesses is of course the inevitable result once the "south side" witnesses are taken out of the equation.

In addition to hasty generalization, circular reasoning, ad hominem argumentation, and special pleading, we can also add that conclusions were drawn on inadequate data. We can recall that in the initial Pentacon "investigation," only a handful of witnesses were interviewed at all with only 4 or so making the cut, out of the hundreds of people who potentially saw the plane. Nor did the physical evidence come into play in assessing the eyewitness evidence. On the basis of the several cherry-picked witnesses who gave "north side" testimony, Ranke and Aldo declared that they have PROVED "beyond any reasonable doubt" that the plane was in fact on the "north side". And having established that proof without giving any weight to the "south side" witnesses and physical evidence, they then turned to this evidence and declared it null and void on the basis of that proof that failed to utilize this evidence to begin with. In a real investigation, the initial research with only a small sample of witnesses would constitute a pilot study that would lead to a hypothesis that would then be tested with the physical evidence or with a greater sample of witnesses. But instead of developing the "north of Citgo flight path" as a viable hypothesis to be tested with further research, they hastily declared on selective data that they have already achieved an ironclad proof on this matter.

That brings me to the next fallacy self-evident in the present CIT production, and that is confirmation bias. Once proof has been declared, the proof procedure for a given argument is complete. If such a declaration has been premature and the matter has not actually been proven, then those who falsely claimed the proof are committed to their position regardless of what new evidence has to say (otherwise they would have to admit their error). That will lead them to mitigate any new evidence that detracts from their position and to favor whatever supports their stated position. I believe that explains why Morin's 2001 statement has been so dramatically distorted by CIT in order to shoehorn his account into a "north side" testimonial when in fact it plainly describes a "south side" flight path. And it similarly explains why Roosevelt is hailed in the video as a "confirmed" "honest-to-goodness" flyover witness when 1) CIT has no "confirming" interview conducted with him, and 2) their interpretation of Roosevelt's statement would make Roosevelt the sole "flyover witness" at their disposal. The special pleading is painfully obvious here. When talking about the mutual "corroboration" of the "north side" witnesses, Craig Ranke said this: "It's the general details that get corrobarated that we know are the true ones, and that is a scientific process --corroboration. So the more people you get saying the same thing, the more likely it is to be true." And yet when it comes down to the mutual corroboration of almost all his witnesses about the plane impacting the building, corroboration is thrown out the window. Now, all the witnesses who report the plane hitting the building must have been mistaken -- never mind that they corroborate each other. Instead, let's set all that aside for a single witness who could possibly be construed as reporting a post-impact flyover (but who can't "confirm" this in an interview, and remember that this is the basis by which other potential "south side" witnesses like Riskus, Hemphill, etc. are set aside).

One curious thing about most of the "new" witnesses (Darius Prather, Darrell Stafford, Donald Carter, William Middleton, George Aman, Sean Boger, Levi Stephens) is that they all have one thing in common: they were themselves on the "north side" of the Navy Annex at the time of the attack. This raises another possibility about why they presumably give "north side" accounts of the attack: They unexpectedly saw the plane flying in their general direction, not knowing where it would end up, and that shock of seeing the plane fly towards them stands out prominently in their memory, such that in subsequent recall they place the plane much closer to them than it really was. This is a perfectly normal response to a traumatic event. In any case, it is striking that CIT has oversampled those who were themselves north of the Citgo. And it is similarly striking that many of those who were themselves south of the Citgo (such as Madelyn Zakhem, Lloyd England, Mike Walter, Joel Sucherman, etc.) are either dismissed summarily as witnesses or are misconstrued as being "north side" witnesses (Terry Morin).

One final failure of CIT is to consider the consequence of unnecessarily multiplying entities in one's analysis (Ockham's Razor). That was the point of my post yesterday about the physical evidence and the logistics of planning an inside-job Pentagon attack with a decoy jet. All the physical evidence that CIT refuses to accord evidentiary value MUST therefore be explained as having been faked if the "proof" claimed by CIT is valid rather than being a premature conclusion. Because the physical evidence is so vast simply in terms of the amount of things that would need to be planted or faked (each one constituting an opportunity for failure or discovery), one has to suppose that the planners of the inside-job Pentagon attack were willing to accept a ridiculously absurd number of unnecessary risks in setting up an operation that had so much riding on it. In fact, what CIT supposes is a lot of extremely complex planning and faking of evidence in just one particular location that would have only been able to "fool" those viewing from one side of the Pentagon, while not giving any thought whatsoever about what people on the opposite side of the building would have seen (e.g. an explosion, and then a big plane flying away from it). The blindness to this issue is evident even in TheLoneBedouin's comment from earlier today:

"All tapes were immediately confiscated by the FBI."

Conveniently, the camera on the north side of the Citgo gas station was taken by the FBI hours after the event.


But...but...but what about all those potential cameras in, say, a person's private apartment in Pentagon City, or in an office building in Crystal City, or in a car on Route 395? How could the FBI, if they were "in-on-it", have possibly known that unbeknownst to them there wouldn't have been cameras rolling elsewhere in the city if the reason they were taking the film was to confiscate evidence of what really happened? That tribby.net video of the mushroom cloud of the explosion taken just seconds after the attack in a private vehicle on Route 395 is a case in point. What if that was a tourist who wanted to get video of the Pentagon while driving past it and he drove past it just seconds before, thereby allowing him to videotape the "decoy jet" flying away after the explosion? Why does CIT seriously think that the planners would have taken this risk or not taken measures to deceive and fool potential witnesses and cameras on the east, south, and north sides of the Pentagon? Because they are not thinking straight.

[John Blonn]

No, no such thing has been proven. Let's take a look at CIT's track record. The original witnesses interviewed for the Pentacon were not unamimously reporting flight paths interpretable as along the "north side" of the Citgo. Some could be classed as "north side" and others could be classed as "south side". That's the variation to be expected in eyewitness recollections. But as I showed in a number of cases already in this thread, CIT omitted all the "south side" witnesses they interviewed from the body of "valid" evidence because they contradicted the "north side" witnesses. Their reasoning was explicitly that no witness would report the plane on the "south side" since the "north side" witnesses already establish that the plane was the "north side", so the "south side" witnesses are all liars (and therefore not even to be counted as witnesses). So with that reasoning, no witness could ever be a "south side" witness and as a result, the total number of "south side" witnesses would always be ZERO.

Any reasonably intelligent person can see the hasty generalization and circular reasoning involved here. Real investigations collect an adequate and representative sample of evidence and THEN evaluate it to come up with hypotheses (if, say, in the case of a pilot study) or conclusions. But before the evaluation of the collected evidence takes place, CIT has already expunged people like Zackem, England, McGraw, etc. from the evidence pool by rendering them as non-witnesses for not conforming to the "north side" claim. What was supposed to be a conclusion determined by impartially assessing the evidence has therefore become a premise for determining what can be included as evidence in the first place. That allows CIT to "stack the deck" and create the appearance of unanimity when agreement is far less obvious.

Such fallacious reasoning can only be too transparent, so CIT tried to buttress their villification of the "south side" witnesses through ad hominem (Ms. Zackem is a crypto-Joo, Mr. McGraw is a Catholic priest with presumably Opus Dei connections, Mr. England reads David Icke and he possibly is an accomplice in mass murder) and through criticism over details of their recollections. What is important about the latter is the blatant double standard (special pleading) at work. Nit-picks like whether Zackem or Sucherman or whoever could see the plane at its final moment crashing into the building with trees in the way are supposed to support the conclusion that these witnesses are unreliable (= lying) about the plane being on the "south side" path at all. And yet if the witness happens to be a "north side" witness, all of a sudden an entirely different, more reasonable attitude is taken. In the case of an observation that George Aman makes that Craig Ranke thinks was not possible, he asks in the video linked in the OP: "Now does this discredit him, does this make you think this is no way he could be an honest person?" If he were a "south side" witness, the presumed answer would be YES since in practice that is how they are regarded. But for someone prized as a "north side" witness, the answer is: "Well, deduction and embellishment is a typical eyewitness tendency for innocent eyewitnesses." So no, he still counts as a valid witness. In the case of some of the other "north side" witnesses, Ranke also says: "You can't expect them to be perfectly accurate and we don't, we know that eyewitness testimony is fallible in many ways and we expect that". And Aldo concurs: "Obviously memory is not going to be 100% accurate on those little finite details they're not computers, they do not have a photographic lens built into their brain or their eyes, they're estimating." But the same benefit of the doubt is never afforded to the "south side" witnesses, who naturally corroborate each other in placing the plane's path more to the south. The mutual corroboration of the "north side" witnesses is of course the inevitable result once the "south side" witnesses are taken out of the equation.

In addition to hazy generalization, circular reasoning, ad hominem argumentation, and special pleading, we can also add that conclusions were drawn on inadequate data. We can recall that in the initial Pentacon "investigation," only a handful of witnesses were interviewed at all with only 4 or so making the cut, out of the hundreds of people who potentially saw the plane. Nor did the physical evidence come into play in assessing the eyewitness evidence. On the basis of the several cherry-picked witnesses who gave "north side" testimony, Ranke and Aldo declared that they have PROVED "beyond any reasonable doubt" that the plane was in fact on the "north side". And having established that proof without giving any weight to the "south side" witnesses and physical evidence, they then turned to this evidence and declared it null and void on the basis of that proof that failed to utilize this evidence to begin with. In a real investigation, the initial research with only a small sample of witnesses would constitute a pilot study that would lead to a hypothesis that would then be tested with the physical evidence or with a greater sample of witnesses. But instead of developing the "north of Citgo flight path" as a viable hypothesis to be tested with further research, they hastily declared on selective data that they have already achieved an ironclad proof on this matter.

That brings me to the next fallacy self-evident in the present CIT production, and that is confirmation bias. Once proof has been declared, the proof procedure for a given argument is complete. If such a declaration has been premature and the matter has not actually been proven, then those who falsely claimed the proof are committed to their position regardless of what new evidence has to say (otherwise they would have to admit their error). That will lead them to mitigate any new evidence that detracts from their position and to favor whatever supports their stated position. I believe that explains why Morin's 2001 statement has been so dramatically distorted by CIT in order to shoehorn his account into a "north side" testimonial when in fact it plainly describes a "south side" flight path. And it similarly explains why Roosevelt is hailed in the video as a "confirmed" "honest-to-goodness" flyover witness when 1) CIT has no "confirming" interview conducted with him, and 2) their interpretation of Roosevelt's statement would make Roosevelt the sole "flyover witness" at their disposal. The special pleading is painfully obvious here. When talking about the mutual "corroboration" of the "north side" witnesses, Craig Ranke said this: "It's the general details that get corrobarated that we know are the true ones, and that is a scientific process --corroboration. So the more people you get saying the same thing, the more likely it is to be true." And yet when it comes down to the mutual corroboration of almost all his witnesses about the plane impacting the building, corroboration is thrown out the window. Now, all the witnesses who report the plane hitting the building must have been mistaken -- never mind that they corroborate each other. Instead, let's set all that aside for a single witness who could possibly be construed as reporting a post-impact flyover (but who can't "confirm" this in an interview, and remember that this is the basis by which other potential "south side" witnesses like Riskus, Hemphill, etc. are set aside).

One curious thing about most of the "new" witnesses (Darius Prather, Darrell Stafford, Donald Carter, William Middleton, George Aman, Sean Boger, Levi Stephens) is that they all have one thing in common: they were themselves on the "north side" of the Navy Annex at the time of the attack. This raises another possibility about why they presumably give "north side" accounts of the attack: They unexpectedly saw the plane flying in their general direction, not knowing where it would end up, and that shock of seeing the plane fly towards them stands out prominently in their memory, such that in subsequent recall they place the plane much closer to them than it really was. This is a perfectly normal response to a traumatic event. In any case, it is striking that CIT has oversampled those who were themselves north of the Citgo. And it is similarly striking that many of those who were themselves south of the Citgo (such as Madelyn Zakhem, Lloyd England, Mike Walter, Joel Sucherman, etc.) are either dismissed summarily as witnesses or are misconstrued as being "north side" witnesses (Terry Morin).

One final failure of CIT is to consider the consequence of unnecessarily multiplying entities in one's analysis (Ockham's Razor). That was the point of my post yesterday about the physical evidence and the logistics of planning an inside-job Pentagon attack with a decoy jet. All the physical evidence that CIT refuses to accord evidentiary value MUST therefore be explained as having been faked if the "proof" claimed by CIT is valid rather than being a premature conclusion. Because the physical evidence is so vast simply in terms of the amount of things that would need to be planted or faked (each one constituting an opportunity for failure or discovery), one has to suppose that the planners of the inside-job Pentagon attack were willing to accept a ridiculously absurd number of unnecessary risks in setting up an operation that had so much riding on it. In fact, what CIT supposes is a lot of extremely complex planning and faking of evidence in just one particular location that would have only been able to "fool" those viewing from one side of the Pentagon, while not giving any thought whatsoever about what people on the opposite side of the building would have seen (e.g. an explosion, and then a big plane flying away from it). The blindness to this issue is evident even in TheLoneBedouin's comment from earlier today:




But...but...but what about all those potential cameras in, say, a person's private apartment in Pentagon City, or in an office building in Crystal City, or in a car on Route 395? How could the FBI, if they were "in-on-it", have possibly known that unbeknownst to them there wouldn't have been cameras rolling elsewhere in the city if the reason they were taking the film was to confiscate evidence of what really happened? That tribby.net video of the mushroom cloud of the explosion taken just seconds after the attack in a private vehicle on Route 395 is a case in point. What if that was a tourist who wanted to get video of the Pentagon while driving past it and he drove past it just seconds before, thereby allowing him to videotape the "decoy jet" flying away after the explosion? Why does CIT seriously think that the planners would have taken this risk or not taken measures to deceive and fool potential witnesses and cameras on the east, south, and north sides of the Pentagon? Because they are not thinking straight.

lol

End thread. Lock and sticky, plz.

Nominated.

[jhunter1163]

Seconded on the nomination.

[John Blonn]

Yes, an 'official theory' supporter debunking Lloyd England's account. None of the poles were thrown like a javelin. Do you seriously suggest they would be?
If so, what's wrong with Wilson's modeling of the light pole interaction with the plane?
If not, how do you explain England's story?
Is England a liar?

I never said anything about the light pole being thrown like a javelin. That's not my argument.

I just find it funny that you trust a video for one convenient part you like, a video that I imagine you believe otherwise got everything wrong.

[DC]

Ah, yes, WE are debunked. In the meantime, AA Flight 77 was hijacked by jihadists and flown into the Pentagon, as is PROVED by the calls made from the doomed plane, the wreckage of the aircraft found inside the building and on the lawn, the remains of the passengers and crew also found inside the Pentagon and identified by DNA testing, and the eyewitness accounts of roughly 100 people.

By contrast, your tiny group of low-IQ liars claims to have witnesses who describe an impossible flight path but insist, nevertheless, that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

Edited for civility

PROVED by the calls

Edited for civility

[Arus808]

yes, please lock this thread.

what has been stated here, has been stated in OTHER thread,s NUMEROUS times.

Why do we have to repeat the same things over and over and over and over again, when a new sock troofer comes in here and claims something?

I suggest taht no one responds to people who are not here to learn ,but to hear themselves speak.

[DC]

I suggest taht no one responds to people who are not here to learn


LOL

[Jonnyclueless]

PROVED by the calls
Edited for civility


You do realize that calls were made from that plane right? we know you kids aren't too up on the evidence outside of the woo circle, but I figured most everyone knew about that.

[Jonnyclueless]

It's so funny how Dom, TLB, and the other kids are very selective about what posts they respond to isn't it?

So kids, what did the police say when you showed them your evidence? What did the media news say when you presented the "validated evidence?"

Let's tr this for a 4th time now!

[DC]

You do realize that calls were made from that plane right? we know you kids aren't too up on the evidence outside of the woo circle, but I figured most everyone knew about that.

especially the Oslon calls have been proven........ by the FBI..... oh no......

LOL

[LashL]

End thread. Lock and sticky, plz.

Nominated.

Seconded on the nomination.

Thirded (particularly for having the patience and wherewithal to spell all of that out, since my patience for the conspiracy morons who call themselves "cit" and their delusional nonsense ran out quite some time ago).

Nicely done, Mangoose.

[Jonnyclueless]

especially the Oslon calls have been proven........ by the FBI..... oh no......

LOL

Ah yes your proof of proof is by using one conspiracy theory to "prove" another conspiracy theory. Again, so what did the police and the mdeia say when you kids presented your "proof"?

[Caustic Logic]

They took the camera itself? or the video? you have Evidence the FBI took it?

Ha! Yes, the whole camera. Doesn't sound right to me. The proof?The Citgo manager said so, (http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/04/proof-that-cit-was-manipulated.html) and she said it to Pickering, not CIT. That's something, right?

But that's it. Oh, and that this totally PROVEN recording camera had no view in the released video, which PROVES that was altered to remove the view! And that's handy cause the view pointing south shows Flight 77's shadow there, so it's invalid evidence now. and it shows Robert Turcios NOT running out to see it north.

[Caustic Logic]

Oh yeah, and that same manager is the one who offered Turcios to them as a north path witness, of her own free will, for real it seems. But maybe not. Lucky lady for the CIT I must say! They really have nothing, but things like this make it seem to some like they might... rather annoying.