The north side evidence validated to the point of redundancy

[GlennB]

(the confiscated security camera) 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."

Russell reported it, did he?

So the camera was pointing both up and away from the Citgo, rather than down towards the pumps or the shop? It would have to be aligned more or less horizontally along the line of the canopy, in fact. An interesting way to set up a "security camera".

But in this case there would be a clear view of the Pentagon on the security video obtained by Judicial watch some time back. I can't see it myself, all I can see is the forecourt, pumps, register, sales floor etc. But perhaps you can illuminate?

[johnny karate]

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?

Bump for TLB.

[MRC_Hans]

you haven't explained what knocked those light poles down because not a single eyewitness saw it happen.
Nevertheless, they were knocked down. So we have several options:

1) A (very) low-flying airliner knocked them over.

2) Secret government agents came in just before or just after the explosion and knocked them over.

3) Secret government agents removed the original poles and placed damaged ones instead, just before or just after the explosion.

4) A band of leprechauns came by and knocked them over.

5) They were knocked over by controlled demolition.


Any of the above should be quite noticeable, yet nobody seems to have noticed. What does this tell us about the precision of eyewitness accounts?


Hans

[MRC_Hans]

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


LOLSuggestion taken. Welcome to my ignore list.

Hans

[eeyore1954]

In order to believe your theory you have to reconcile the following

Many people did see a plane hit the Pentagon including some of the witnesses you use to support the north of the CITGO theory. If someone says he saw the plane hit the pentagon and also says it flew north of the Citgo which part of his testimony is more likely to be accurate.

The lightpoles were knocked down by something. How would this have been accomplished on a busy rush hour road.

Wreckage was found in the building

Phone calls were made from the plane

DNA was recovered

the FDR was recovered

I could probably list a hundred items here


And you have to believe
the preposterous idea that some people would have planned to fly a plane in broad daylight during a busy time of day on the roads at the pentagon and at the last moment pull up and fly away and hope no one would notice this.
They would have had no control over how many and where people could have witnessed this event from. The same evil planners would have also come up with the idea of planting broken lightpoles on a busy highway during rush hour , spreading debris outside of the pentagon , spreading wreckage inside the burning pentagon , planted a dead body in a plane seat in the pentagon , having fake phone calls , hope that no air traffic controller would notice that a plane heading for the pentagon didn't stop at the accident and instead flew over DC to some other location , etc !!

and they would have done all these things for what reason???

[nicepants]

Excellent post, Mangoose!

[~enigma~]

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.
[stupid truther]But but but.....DRG says there were no seatback phones and DRG has written many bestselling books. Besides, I read on the internet that cell phone calls from a fast moving plane are impossible and it wouldn't be on the internet if it wasn't true.[/stupid truther mode]

[pomeroo]

PROVED by the calls

Edited for civility


Yes, low-IQ liar--proved by the calls that could not have been faked, as shown by the "Father of Voice-Morphing Technology," George Papcun. That title was bestowed on him by your fellow cretinous frauds, by the way.

[pomeroo]

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

LOL


You've been caught lying again, Edited for civility. The Olson calls were quite real. We've been through this many times. Your evil, moronic movement is dead.

[pomeroo]

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


LOL


Unintelligent, ignorant, agenda-driven liars are not here to learn and therefore no one should respond to you. I should heed your sound advice.

[pomeroo]

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.


You have been caught lying again. Very few witnesses place the plane north of the CITGO station.

Many of the survivors of the Titantic insisted that the ship went straight down. Although they observed the sinking from nearby lifeboats, their recollections were wrong. What are the implications of this fact for your fantasy?

You can run, but you can't hide.

[pomeroo]

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?


Gee, a quote fabricated by a conspiracy liar six years after the fact. I guess that proves it was an inside job. Your desperation is comical.

[pomeroo]

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?



Please--just stop! My dogs have a better understanding of physics than you do. A commercial airliner flying over 400 mph hits a breakaway light pole and DOESN'T send it flying???? You liars are the dumbest saps on the planet. You spout this fantastic idiocy and dream that you're making a point.

[bje]

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.

Roosevelt Roberts, according to CIT and his statement, was at the South Side delivery docks of the Pentagon. Therefore, he was not beyond the Pentagon as I stated. You would have to agree with me, correct, TLB?

Why is do you feel Roosevelt is an unreliable witness?According to CIT, Roosevelt's testimony confirms my statement that there would be hundreds of eyewitnesses beyond the Pentagon that would have seen a low-flying, twin engine, passenger-size jet, come screaming over their heads.

Therefore, these facts confirm that you and CIT have absolutely NO eyewitnesses beyond the Pentagon who witnessed a flyover, none, zero, nada.

How do you explain the fact of all those "missing" eyewitnesses, TLB?

[pomeroo]

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


Liar. Most witnesses reject your fantasy.



{snip-mindless gibberish}



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.


No, liar, you were blown out of the water (you should pardon the expression) by the Titanic analogy, which destroys your insane snake oil.

MANY WITNESSES TO A TRAUMATIC EVENT CLAIMED TO SEE SOMETHING THAT DID NOT HAPPEN.

You have run from this crushing observation, but you are trapped.

[eeyore1954]

Nevertheless, they were knocked down. So we have several options:

1) A (very) low-flying airliner knocked them over.

2) Secret government agents came in just before or just after the explosion and knocked them over.

3) Secret government agents removed the original poles and placed damaged ones instead, just before or just after the explosion.

4) A band of leprechauns came by and knocked them over.

5) They were knocked over by controlled demolition.


Any of the above should be quite noticeable, yet nobody seems to have noticed. What does this tell us about the precision of eyewitness accounts?


Hans

Please , any rational thinking individual knows it was done using the same directed energy weapons that caused the WTC towers to pulverize.

[pomeroo]

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.


You're sitting on a breakaway pole that is struck by a 100-ton projectile moving over 400 mph and you'd merely fall down?!?!?! You are as hopeless a fool as Heiwa.

YOU WOULD, AS EVERYONE SANE UNDERSTANDS PERFECTLY, BE SENT FLYING.

How. Stupid. Can. You. Be?

[doobiedoright]

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?



Where is your video of the FBI taking the videos?
without it I am afraid you have no evidence!

[A W Smith]

Russell reported it, did he?

So the camera was pointing both up and away from the Citgo, rather than down towards the pumps or the shop? It would have to be aligned more or less horizontally along the line of the canopy, in fact. An interesting way to set up a "security camera".

But in this case there would be a clear view of the Pentagon on the security video obtained by Judicial watch some time back. I can't see it myself, all I can see is the forecourt, pumps, register, sales floor etc. But perhaps you can illuminate?


Interesting that a mystery camera mounted directly under the canopy aimed at a pump on the ground would be able to see the pentagon wall over the mound in front of the station as well as over the overpass

[Pi_314]

Notice in these CIT video interviews that whenever somebody mentions the poles that were knocked down (pointing to the wrong location I might add) that our interviewer doesn't mention that they are wrong about the location right then and there. Could it be because these people would come to the conclusion that they were wrong about their recollection of the NOC flight path?

If these CIT goofballs were so sure about NOC, why wouldn't they point out the witness mistakes regarding the downed lightpole locations?

I could understand CIT being disingenuous if they were making a ton of dough off of DVD sales, but they can't be. This only tells me that they really actually believe the sheet they are shoveling.

Oh the humanity!!

[Mangoose]

Gee, a quote fabricated by a conspiracy liar six years after the fact. I guess that proves it was an inside job. Your desperation is comical.


Certainly possible, and it was the first thing I thought. But reading the post without TheLoneBedouin's spin on it, a more straightforward explanation is suggested:

"What we did hear was a large explosion followed by a large mushroom cloud. Here is the strange part, a large plane then flow [sic] through the smoke turned a hard left and hidded [sic] back toward dullas [sic] airport. I have heard no reports identifying the second plane."

TheLoneBedouin wants us to take this as a reference to the flyover, as he cites it when told that no one saw "a low-flying, twin engine, passenger-size jet, come screaming over their heads after the massive explosion at the Pentagon." But the reference to the plane flying through the smoke (NOT the fireball or ahead of the fireball, which is how CIT imagines the flyover; the "smoke" suggests sometime later, even subsequent to after the fireball had grown to a mushroom cloud) is exactly how the C-130 was described, which appeared a few minutes later and flew through the smoke above the Pentagon. In fact, you can see this for yourself in the tribby.net video (at 2:04):

http://tribby.net/pentagon/pentagon.mov (http://tribby.net/pentagon/pentagon.mov)

What is amusing and ironic here is that Aldo Marquis claimed that CIT was doing the exact opposite thing as what TheLoneBedouin did in this thread:

" 'The plane behind the fireball' thing with Darrell Stafford I honestly think very well could have been added as bait for us to declare him as a flyover witness and then some reseacher could come along and essentially interview him CIT-style and find out that he's actually referring to the C-130. So we made sure to clarify that, that's what we do, we're not trying to throw witnesses out there willy-nilly and declare them flyover witnesses or north side witnesses."

BTW, I want to correct a small typo in my last post....I meant to list "Maria De La Cerda" among the witnesses at the "north side" of the Citgo, rather than Levi Stephens.

[beachnut]

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



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).
Do you make up this stuff? Why do you believe the lies of p4t? Fixed that 11.2 G error yet sharp pilot who can't do physics?

You and p4t have failed to come up with evidence to support your ideas. That is called failure. How does a self proclaimed sharp pilot set such low standards, and support the false information of p4t?

[Confuseling]

qvfHY-I_Ywk

Anyone posted this yet?

Eyewitness testimony: LOL.

[Bobert]

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...
BELIEVE me if you saw Craig in person your first thought would be
"Man I bet he would like mightly cute in a dress"
Craig has little mans syndrome in a BIG WAY.
Aldo doesnt look very Deejay'ish in that pic.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Notice in these CIT video interviews that whenever somebody mentions the poles that were knocked down (pointing to the wrong location I might add) that our interviewer doesn't mention that they are wrong about the location right then and there. Could it be because these people would come to the conclusion that they were wrong about their recollection of the NOC flight path?

If these CIT goofballs were so sure about NOC, why wouldn't they point out the witness mistakes regarding the downed lightpole locations?


Actually, that's probably the only thing they did right in the "interview" process: they shut up. I really can't speak with authority on the subject, but I imagine that even correcting a witness during an interview is a bad idea. To the witness, it may put them on the defensive and end up feeling more like an interrogation rather than an interview. They may also get the feeling that they're "doing it wrong", and start questioning everything about their recollection of the event. You don't want that.

Let them speak. Analyze it later.

[Drudgewire]

BELIEVE me if you saw Craig in person your first thought would be
"Man I bet he would like mightly cute in a dress"


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

[Mangoose]

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.

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.


We have already gone through this ad nauseum in this forum, as I am sure you know:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=69943
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=80449

But thank you for providing another splendid example of special pleading. When "north side" witnesses yield observations that CIT deems impossible, these are excused as normal failings of memory: "Deduction and embellishment is a typical eyewitness tendency for innocent eyewitnesses....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....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." And yet Lloyd England does not receive the same benefit of the doubt; his rough 2-D sketch of how the pole pierced his windshield is used to discredit his whole account because its details (such as the high angle of the pole with its base up in the air) are held to be incorrect. Your whole argument above is predicated on these details, as if England precisely had "a photographic lens built in his brain or eyes". But rather than admit the possibility that England's sketch involves innocent deduction and misremembering of the details, you declare that it is physically impossible that England's cab was hit by a pole at all and conclude that he is a liar.

The other two threads explored in quite some detail how the pole probably pierced through the windshield without damaging the hood, and without requiring the base of the pole to have been way up the air. You should probably take a look at the discussion.

Stephen McGraw says nothing about the plane's flightpath other than coming 'right over' his car.


Are you kidding me? McGraw's car was right inside the "official flight path" so "right over my car" = "south side" flight path. That no less is the kind of observation that you claim makes Morin count as a "north side" witness.

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.


Again, more special pleading. "North side" witnesses can misremember details or have an incomplete perception of the entire situation and they are excused as simply innocent embellishments and deductions, with the understanding that "eyewitness testimony is fallible in many ways and we expect that." But if Mr. McGraw makes a deduction or embellishment (which he himself indicated that he wasn't sure about), or if he wasn't aware of the whole situation, then BAM! he's a "dubious witness" whose whole testimony can be conveniently ignored. Thank you for reiterating the double standard inherent in CIT's characterization of witnesses.

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


Of course it's "select", it excludes those who placed the plane on a "south side" path. And since you define the group of witnesses as those who "could see the final moments of the plane's flight path", am I to suppose that Paik is not among your witnesses, nor Turcios as well?

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...


FAIL. That superficial scuff on a "same style pole" is entirely different from the damage on the VDOT pole which has fresh white spots intermixed with dark areas in a well-defined oval mark. But I guess you never noticed the obvious damage to the pole in that exact spot:

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/2885/j1dr9.jpg

A foot rung is missing precisely where that "scuff" mark is. A metal rung designed to hold at least half the weight of a man. Its absence is hardly unrelated to that big scrape mark on the pole. And it is false that there is no report about damage to the pole by the plane. The same VDOT publication (http://www.roadstothefuture.com/VA_Sept21.txt) that reported Madelyn Zackem's experience of the attack also mentioned that the lens of the VDOT camera was damaged and the camera was knocked sideways. Although the author of the article attributed this to the blast from the plane's impact when it more likely was due to the plane directly nicking the pole itself, such damage is still attributed to the plane.

The alleged "tree damage" amounts to nothing but a few discolored leaves so nothing proves this was caused by a plane


Hardly. The branches at the top are sheared and splintered, with leaves scattered in the street near the cab. The sheared top of the tree is also where the right engine would have been expected to be (if the right wing wip nicked the VDOT pole), and is curved suggestively like the bottom of the engine. But you miss the point. If the perps intended those downed light poles to simulate impacts by the plane, then they HAD to also shave the top of the tree because it would have been an obvious obstacle. It would have stuck out like a sore thumb that the poles were downed but the tree was still pristine even though it would have been in the plane's way. Just like a murderer trying to cover his tracks and make a murder look like a suicide, he would have had to think about ALL the tiny forensic details that would have to be fabricated so as to not tip off investigators.

It is the same thing with all the other things I pointed out. I again ask if such a complex operation would have been the simplest and least risky thing that the planners would have wanted to undertake.

[bje]

duplicate

[bje]

He was busted early on trying to pose as flight instructor:

0Ie3Myg0c6U

[Shalamar]

Nevertheless, they were knocked down. So we have several options:

1) A (very) low-flying airliner knocked them over.

2) Secret government agents came in just before or just after the explosion and knocked them over.

3) Secret government agents removed the original poles and placed damaged ones instead, just before or just after the explosion.

4) A band of leprechauns came by and knocked them over.

5) They were knocked over by controlled demolition.


Any of the above should be quite noticeable, yet nobody seems to have noticed. What does this tell us about the precision of eyewitness accounts?


Hans

WRONG!

It was rogue Canadian Lumberjacks!

Prove me wrong!



;)

[Mince]

So, TLB or RedIbis or TC329 or anyone;

You're on trial for murder. All of the empirical and circumstantial evidence provided by the defense is in your favor. However, the prosecution has four people testify they saw you commit this murder. That is all the prosecution has. Should the jury convict you? Why or why not?

[Myriad]

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:

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.


That's really all that needs to be said, ever (or until such time as CIT acknowledges and corrects these errors of circular reasoning, special pleading, confirmation bias, ad hominem argumentation, etc., which is likely to be equivalent to ever), about CIT's arguments and theories, on this thread or any other.

Expect representatives of CIT to continue to attempt to pick out a sentence here and there from Mangoose's post and dispute them, and to attempt to direct the discussion into minutia where they can pretend to be correct (or even actually be correct) in arguments over isolated facts, but the issue will continue to be, as it has always been, their arbitrary disregarding and/or dismissal of vast amounts of contrary evidence.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[LashL]

Actually, that's probably the only thing they did right in the "interview" process: they shut up. I really can't speak with authority on the subject, but I imagine that even correcting a witness during an interview is a bad idea. To the witness, it may put them on the defensive and end up feeling more like an interrogation rather than an interview. They may also get the feeling that they're "doing it wrong", and start questioning everything about their recollection of the event. You don't want that.

Let them speak. Analyze it later.


However, a legitimate interviewer would come back to the apparently erroneous information after the interviewee has got through his/her account and ask the interviewee specifically about it. E.g.: "You mentioned light poles being hit. Please elaborate on that. Did you see the plane impact light poles? Where were they? How many? Please mark this aerial photograph to indicate where they were located." Etc., etc., etc.

A legitimate interviewer would not fail to follow up on such things, as it is critical to examining the accuracy or inaccuracy of an alleged witness' account, particularly when the interviewer believes or knows something that the interviewee said to be incorrect. Such follow-up to erroneous information given by an alleged witness is critical to assessing/testing the validity of the entirety of the witness' account.

There is no legitimate reason for an interviewer to ignore apparently erroneous information given by an alleged witness, and every reason for a legitimate interviewer to follow up on it, garner details, etc.

Conversely, there are illegitimate reasons for morons like the cit boys to ignore apparently erroneous information given by alleged witnesses when it doesn't fit into their fantasies.

[LashL]

That's really all that needs to be said, ever (or until such time as CIT acknowledges and corrects these errors of circular reasoning, special pleading, confirmation bias, ad hominem argumentation, etc., which is likely to be equivalent to ever), about CIT's arguments and theories, on this thread or any other.

Expect representatives of CIT to continue to attempt to pick out a sentence here and there from Mangoose's post and dispute them, and to attempt to direct the discussion into minutia where they can pretend to be correct (or even actually be correct) in arguments over isolated facts, but the issue will continue to be, as it has always been, their arbitrary disregarding and/or dismissal of vast amounts of contrary evidence.

Respectfully,
Myriad


Indeed. Mangoose nailed it quite thoroughly, and your additional comment is bang-on as well.

[Jonnyclueless]

Come on now TLB, don't be shy. I think this is my 5th or 6th time asking. What did the police and the news media say when you showed them your "proof"?

[Jonnyclueless]

Oh, and have you guys also filed with the department of redundancy department?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

However, a legitimate interviewer would come back to the apparently erroneous information after the interviewee has got through his/her account and ask the interviewee specifically about it. E.g.: "You mentioned light poles being hit. Please elaborate on that. Did you see the plane impact light poles? Where were they? How many? Please mark this aerial photograph to indicate where they were located." Etc., etc., etc.

A legitimate interviewer would not fail to follow up on such things, as it is critical to examining the accuracy or inaccuracy of an alleged witness' account, particularly when the interviewer believes or knows something that the interviewee said to be incorrect. Such follow-up to erroneous information given by an alleged witness is critical to assessing/testing the validity of the entirety of the witness' account.

There is no legitimate reason for an interviewer to ignore apparently erroneous information given by an alleged witness, and every reason for a legitimate interviewer to follow up on it, garner details, etc.

Conversely, there are illegitimate reasons for morons like the cit boys to ignore apparently erroneous information given by alleged witnesses when it doesn't fit into their fantasies.


Ahh... Thanks for the correction. :)

[Jonnyclueless]

TLB? Hello? (echo echo echo.....)

[bje]

TLB? Hello? (echo echo echo.....)

After Mangoose delivered his excellent coup de grace, TLB flew the coop along with the rest of the CIT gang, no pun intended.

[SDC]

So the exorcism worked? Maybe that is what is needed 'round here; a new category of punishment, along with "suspended" and "banned": exorcised.

[VespaGuy]

http://www.thepentacon.com/northsideflyover.htm

Too funny! Apparently the Citizen Investigation Team fails as movie makers as well. Check out Part 1 at around 34:34 left... it appears that the cameraman left his cell phone on.

That's some quality movie making.

[pomeroo]

After Mangoose delivered his excellent coup de grace, TLB flew the coop along with the rest of the CIT gang, no pun intended.


Yes, the frauds and fools of the CIT have been routed again. It is certain, however, that they will be back to recycle the same nonsensical crap, and they still won't have a single witness to their imaginary flyover.

[bje]

Yes, the frauds and fools of the CIT have been routed again. It is certain, however, that they will be back to recycle the same nonsensical crap, and they still won't have a single witness to their imaginary flyover.

Yes, and CIT's new flyover path will have to be twisted into a pretzel to conform to their new "reality."

[WildCat]

http://www.thepentacon.com/northsideflyover.htm

Too funny! Apparently the Citizen Investigation Team fails as movie makers as well. Check out Part 1 at around 34:34 left... it appears that the cameraman left his cell phone on.

That's some quality movie making.
He has to, mama needs to tell him when to come home for supper.

[Bobert]

Is it just me or does Aldo look like Aloysius Snuffleupagus?



http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:josnu0LP9awfUM:http://www.novirginsallowed.com/saddadcentral/writings/snuffleupagus/snuffleupagus.jpg

[Whiplash]

If the northside evidence has been validated to the point of redundancy, why in the world is this thread over 14 pages long and still boiling?

[Cobalt]

If the northside evidence has been validated to the point of redundancy, why in the world is this thread over 14 pages long and still boiling?

You might as well ask how many licks it takes to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop.

Doesn't look like any "validation" is going to happen anytime soon.

[twinstead]

If the northside evidence has been validated to the point of redundancy, why in the world is this thread over 14 pages long and still boiling?

Many truthers could keep a thread boiling for hundreds of pages while claiming the sky is green

[TheLoneBedouin]

If the northside evidence has been validated to the point of redundancy, why in the world is this thread over 14 pages long and still boiling?
Perhaps it has something to do with the vast majority of posters avoiding the evidence.

[HyJinX]

Perhaps it has something to do with the vast majority of posters avoiding the evidence.

Nope...just you.

[TheRedWorm]

Perhaps it has something to do with the vast majority of posters avoiding the evidence.


Speaking of, any response to This Post? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3916184#post3916184)

ETA: or this one? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3918745&postcount=527)

[TheLoneBedouin]

After Mangoose delivered his excellent coup de grace, TLB flew the coop along with the rest of the CIT gang, no pun intended.
Oh don't worry, I'm still here. I have more important things to do than argue with the JREF hivemind all day.

[pomeroo]

Perhaps it has something to do with the vast majority of posters avoiding the evidence.


The frauds, fools, and liars of the CIT claim to have found a tiny handful of witnesses who describe an impossible flight path. That word "witnesses" is interesting. What they "witnessed," of course, is the crash of a commercial airliner into the Pentagon.

I have asked repeatedly, without ever getting a coherent response, When will the frauds request that these people resolve their mutually-exclusive claims?

What part of that question do you fail to comprehend?

[Drudgewire]

Oh don't worry, I'm still here. I have more important things to do than argue with the JREF hivemind all day.


Like presenting everything we're avoiding to the proper authorities and/or media outlets so the veil can finally be lifted and the wide-reaching cover-up exposed?

Or maybe presenting it to the scientific community who (unlike us) AREN'T all under the thumb of the evil NWO and can confirm the witness accounts with hard evidence?








Yeah... thought not.

[TheLoneBedouin]

Here is a response (http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=272) to Mangoose's 'wall of text' post.
I would also like to add the following:
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.
Really, got evidence?
Whether you have evidence or not, you're incorrect since the plane wouldn't be flying towards them on the official flight path, only on the NOC path. The ANC witnesses make a point of saying how they all ran for their lives as the plane came for them straight over the Navy Annex. Middleton wouldn't have even been able to see the plane on the official flight path!
Mangoose,
why do you insist on using faulty logic in order to dismiss unanimously corroborated witness testimony?

[TheLoneBedouin]

I never said anything about the light pole being thrown like a javelin. That's not my argument.
But it's England's story.
How do you explain his story?
Is he a liar?

[HyJinX]

Here is a response (http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=272) to Mangoose's 'wall of text' post.
I would also like to add the following:

Really, got evidence?
Whether you have evidence or not, you're incorrect since the plane wouldn't be flying towards them on the official flight path, only on the NOC path. The ANC witnesses make a point of saying how they all ran for their lives as the plane came for them straight over the Navy Annex. Middleton wouldn't have even been able to see the plane on the official flight path!
Mangoose,
why do you insist on using faulty logic in order to dismiss unanimously corroborated witness testimony?

I think the real question is why do you insist on believing that what "evidence" you think you have actually means something when the physical evidence proves your wrong and the majority of eye-witnesses (including most of your witnesses) saw the plane hit the pentagon? Your faulty logic has been continually and consistently been proven wrong. Why do you continue to hide and cower behind a wall of ignorance?

[16.5]

But it's England's story.
How do you explain his story?
Is he a liar?

You and your dope pals at the CIT sure have accused him of being one. I hope he sues your asses, but defamation has to be published, and given the resounding yawn that has met the CIT Version 6 -- Electric Boogaloo, that might be a problem for him.

I do notice you are getting lazy, simply linking your mentor's rantings over at the CIT Tree Club.

[pomeroo]

But it's England's story.
How do you explain his story?
Is he a liar?


How will the frauds demonstrate in court that England belongs to their imaginary conspiracy? Remember, they are libeling him.

[bje]

Oh don't worry, I'm still here. I have more important things to do than argue with the JREF hivemind all day.

We know you're concerned with CIT instead. Ranke stuck his foot in his mouth again by showing that he can't come up with any flyover witnesses on the other side of the Pentagon.

How dumb is that?

[doobiedoright]

Perhaps it has something to do with the vast majority of posters avoiding the evidence.




Mr. kettle the pot is holding on line 4 for you!

[funk de fino]

I'd like to see any truther address post # 531 please?

[Confuseling]

I'd like to see any truther address post # 531 please?

Hey! Hey! No queue jumping!

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?

?!?!?!?!?

[bje]

Some quite interesting Rankerian backpedaling going on at ATS:

reply posted on 6-8-2008 @ 09:22 PM by Craig Ranke CIT

reply to post by Reheat

Psssst.....

CIT does not have a flight path.

We merely report what the witnesses say.

They report a relatively slow bank north of the gas station.

This evidence has nothing to do with CIT so stop blaming us.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread378783/pg7

[tsig]

Perhaps it has something to do with the vast majority of posters avoiding the evidence.

We can't avoid what isn't there.

[Jonnyclueless]

Perhaps it has something to do with the vast majority of posters avoiding the evidence.

So the reason you are intentionally ignoring repeated questions is because you think the majority of posters are avoiding the evidence? And you don't see that as a clear sign og a psychological disorder on your part? Maybe I should tr again.

What did the police and the media say when you showed them your "proof"? I mean after all, you claim to have uncovered the biggest crime in the history of man, surely you reported this crime to the police right?

[GlennB]

What did the police and the media say when you showed them your "proof"? I mean after all, you claim to have uncovered the biggest crime in the history of man, surely you reported this crime to the police right?

Don't be silly ... of course they did ... it's what any responsible citizen would do, right ???

You can't possibly think theese fine CITIZENS might try to pimp videos on the 'net instead ???

[Mangoose]

Here is a response (http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=272) to Mangoose's 'wall of text' post.


Well, thank you for bringing that to my attention; you get a gold star. There is hardly much I need to say for a rebuttal, since Craig does such a good job of providing little of substance in his post. But I will make a few detailed remarks. My first paragraph, to anyone who has average reading ability, was talking about the initial research efforts by CIT which included interviews with BOTH "south side" witnesses and "north side" witnesses. But Craig wiggles out of this plain fact by pedantically quibbling with the wording I chose to express this:

You must not be talking about The PentaCon. They are all definitive north side witnesses which must be why you did not state a name of any alleged south side witnesses. So your post starts out with a bold faced lie to set the tone and stage of everything to follow.


In referring to the witnesses interviewed prior to the release of The PentaCon, which included both "south side" and "north side" witnesses, I termed them "the original witnesses interviewed for the Pentacon". Ranke rightly notes that no "south side" witnesses appear in The PentaCon, "they are all definitive north side witnesses." I know that -- I essentially said this when I said that when the time came to evaluate the evidence CIT had omitted and expunged all the "south side" witnesses from the body of "valid" evidence. The PentaCon was, aside from LooseChangeForum posts and other discussions, one of the first presentations of CIT's conclusions from their evidence gathering. And yet, as I correctly noted, it only presents a portion of the witnesses interviewed by CIT and none of the "south side" witnesses.

The timeline of the research is not in dispute. The first research trip with Dylan Avery and Russell Pickering in August 2006 interviewed Madelyn Zackem, Edward Paik, Robert Turcios (via phone interview soon afterward, I think), Lloyd England (link (http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?act=Print&client=printer&f=19&t=12857)), and Stephen McGraw (link (http://coughymachine.blogspot.com/2007/12/pentagon-attack-alleged-witness-stephen.html)). Not to take Ranke's word for it, the EXIF data from photos from the trip to the Citgo station and the trip to Lloyd England's home bear the date of 8/23/2006. Then subsequent trips were taken that fall where Lagasse and Brooks were interviewed and Paik was re-interviewed. Then thepentacon.com was registered as a domain in 11/18/2006 and ThePentaCon Smoking Gun Edition appeared on Google Video on 2/22/2007. So as I said, the initial research included people like England, Zackem, and McGraw who support the "official flight path" and who were not part of the PentaCon production. Of course, if anything in the timeline is in error, I would be happy to correct it.

More pedantics here:

None of the witnesses we spoke with placed the plane on the south side of the gas station. You are completely making that up and using witnesses who were not in a position to tell and/or admit to not seeing the approach at all!


Now apparently, what makes a witnesses a "south side" witnesses is that they have to explicitly "place the plane on the south side of the gas station". This is a narrowed criterion that apparently does not apply to claimed "north side" witnesses like Paik, who clearly could not have placed the plane on the north side of the gas station" which wasn't even in his line of sight. But presumably it is on this basis that Ranke disqualifies McGraw and England from being "south side" witnesses because they did not see the plane while it was "on the south side of the gas station".

I should also specify what Ranke accuses me of "making up". What I said was "CIT omitted all the 'south side' witnesses they interviewed from the body of 'valid' evidence," and in his response, Ranke turns my reference to " 'south side' witnesses" (always in scare quotes because I recognize that this is CIT's own ad hoc category) into "witnesses who placed the plane on the south side of the gas station". There is a difference between the two that Ranke capitalizes on, as explained in my last paragraph. But my use of the term " 'south side' witnesses" was perfectly in accord with Ranke's classification of witnesses by the degree to which they support one flight path or another -- not whether they necessarily observe the plane being on one side or another of the Citgo station.

Mangoose: "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."

Another lie. That is not our "reasoning" and you have provided no evidence that we have ever stated that it was or said a single thing to correctly lead you or anyone to believe this. You are merely making this false assertion with authority as if it were true.


Apparently Ranke hasn't read this thread too well, as I've already presented several examples of this reasoning from CIT posts and from what CIT lackey TheLoneBedouin wrote in this forum. For instance, I quoted Aldo Marquis who accused Madelyn Zackem of lying precisely because a "north side" witness had already established for him that the plane could not have been on the "south side": "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" [link (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread286109/pg2)]. The same reasoning is found in CIT's "The First Accomplice?" concerning Lloyd England:

Their testimony [i.e. the testimony of the "north side" witnesses] is quadruple-corroborated evidence that the light poles were not hit by the plane. It would be physically impossible if what they saw wasn't reality. As simple as it is, this testimony alone is enough to prove that 9/11 was an inside job. But naturally people will still have questions. Like, what about that cab driver that supposedly got hit while driving south on Route 27? Lloyd England was allegedly headed south on Route 27 when the windshield of his cab was allegedly speared by a light pole....He says that he then locked his brakes, came to a stop, he got help from a stranger to remove the over 30-foot base of the pole from the windshield of his cab. He also claims that he fell down in the process. The problem is that Lloyd and the light pole were located in a position on the highway that isn't anywhere near where the witnesses we spoke with placed the plane. Only poles #1 and #2 could have hit Lloyd's cab and this is impossible because the plane, based on where the witnesses placed it, could not have hit poles #1 and #2.


The same reasoning can be found in scores and scores of posts scattered all over the internet. Notice that because of what the "north side" witnesses say, it is "impossible" that Lloyd's own testimony ("he says") is truthful. And also notice how Lloyd doesn't even count as one of "the witnesses we spoke with" and how "the witnesses" in general placed the plane on the "north side". It doesn't take a genius to see that Lloyd is not being counted as a witness and that any witness who reports a "south side" flight path can be disqualified on the same basis. The same reasoning regarding Lloyd England can be observed on the PentaCon website:

...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


Finally, in this very thread, TheLoneBedouin said that the bottom line is that there are "ZERO independent confirmed first-hand accounts that definitively support a south side flight path", adding that "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 among of people who were willing to deceive". Just as I've stated it, it is on the basis of assuming that the "north side" witnesses are correct that one can automatically regard witnesses supporting the "official flight path" as (probably) involved in a "military deception".

Our "reasoning" is based on the fact that all independently confirmed accounts who were in a position to tell place the plane on the north side. This is fact. This implicates people and yes it implicates some who are not definitive north or south side witnesses.


So what about getting "independently confirmed accounts" from those who were in a position to tell that the plane was on the south side -- you know, like oh I don't know, Lloyd England who had a freaking LIGHT POLE crash into his windshield? I say he would've been in a great position to place the plane on the "south side"! But then he wouldn't have been considered "confirmed" anyway since he reports the plane on the "official flight path," and only witnesses who report a "north side" flight path are worthy enough to be considered "confirmed" (even if Lloyd confirmed his placement of the plane in an interview with CIT).

Yes we have reported suspicious and/or dubious details on some witnesses but NOT because they were allegedly south side witnesses. It's because there are dubious details in their accounts. You are the one jumping to conclusions and making unsupported claims about our thought process as if you can read our minds.


No mind-reading ability is necessary (though I suppose there is NWO technology for that), only basic reading ability that one gains through a normal education. "South side" witnesses are automatically suspect by virtue of not reporting a "north side" flight path; Aldo says that it is IMPOSSIBLE that the plane could have been where Lloyd England was, ergo, Lloyd's account is a "complete fabrication". If there are additional "dubious details" that would buttress that conclusion, then these would of course be mentioned and accorded importance, but Craig Ranke is fooling no one when he says that those "details" are the main reason why he distrusts Lloyd and not Lloyd's placement of the plane itself which already "proves" Lloyd's story as a fabrication. My point about these "details" is that CIT follows a double standard with respect to details that are held to have been "impossible". A "south side" witness who reports "impossible" details (like light poles being hit) or who missed other important details in their recall (like McGraw's missing out of the light poles near him) is decried as dishonest or a "suspect witness". A "north side" witness who reports "impossible" details (like people on the plane) or who missed other important details in their recall (such as a flyover) is excused as expressing the normal, innocent deductions and embellishments that occur as a matter of course. I don't think Ranke grasps this point because he says about my observation of their double standard:

You are lying about me AGAIN without a shred of evidence to support your assertion.

1. There are no south side witnesses.
2. You will not find a quote where I suggested that a witness is completely discredited because they thought they saw people in the windows.

Stop making things up out of desperation.


"No 'south side' witnesses"....Ranke first confirms that McGraw, England, etc. have been taken out of the equation. And in #2, Ranke completely misunderstands my point. My point is PRECISELY that "north side" witnesses making "impossible" observations like seeing people in the windows are NOT regarded as discredited. Of course I wouldn't find a quote of him referring to them as discredited!

Zackem and Lloyd are the ONLY witnesses we spoke with that you could remotely consider "south side" yet their accounts are questionable for many reasons


Again, never mind about Lloyd England and Stephen McGraw, who put the plane on the "official" flight path.

Well, I'm not going over the rest of Ranke's off-the-wall post which would be pretty pointless, except perhaps to mention one more distortion:

Mangoose: 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.

Incorrect. You have no evidence for these accusations. Our Lloyd and McGraw presentations came out AFTER The PentaCon. The quote from Aldo about Zackem was AFTER we had spoken with Edward Paik and the citgo witnesses proving her story false. So once again you are lying about the circumstance, the time line of our claims and evidence release


I wasn't talking about subsequent post-PentaCon releases of Lloyd and McGraw presentations but the PentaCon presentation itself. In fact, Ranke here makes my point -- "south side" witnesses like Zackem, McGraw, and Lloyd were left out of that analysis of the evidence they had heretofore collected. They were already omitted before CIT presented their analysis in that release, even though these were among the first witnesses interviewed by CIT. And Ranke again confirms that what "proved" Zackem's "south side" account false is that she was contradicted by the "north side" witnesses.

And regarding Ranke's "challenge", sorry to disappoint but I'm not the slightest bit interested. Debates favor those with excellent debating skillz and that isn't my strength. I am sure Ranke is super-talented in that department (he's quite a fast talker on the Damage Report), and good for him. But that doesn't make him right, and this forum is a much better way of presenting arguments in depth than in a rapid-fire debate format. Plus I am not interested in posting elsewhere or taking this discussion outside JREF. I'm sure Craig will have fun with his macho posturing in response, all I can say is -- knock yourself out! :)

[pomeroo]

You know, I've been hammering at the frauds and jackasses of the CIT for over a year to ask their cherry-picked witnesses to resolve their mutually-exclusive claims. I've issued this demand maybe two dozen times. To date, I haven't received a single reply.

If you didn't know better, you'd almost swear that they find this subject a bit inconvenient.

I've only asked them about the Titanic survivors eight or nine times. I think they're busy preparing a response, although I could be mistaken.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

So the reason you are intentionally ignoring repeated questions is because you think the majority of posters are avoiding the evidence?


It's true. Asking questions about the evidence means you're avoiding the evidence.

[Confuseling]

*Mangoose eats thread for breakfast*

*Confuseling, no substance to add, passes the pepper*

[OldTigerCub]

You know, I've been hammering at the frauds and jackasses of the CIT for over a year to ask their cherry-picked witnesses to resolve their mutually-exclusive claims. I've issued this demand maybe two dozen times. To date, I haven't received a single reply.

If you didn't know better, you'd almost swear that they find this subject a bit inconvenient.

I've only asked them about the Titanic survivors eight or nine times. I think they're busy preparing a response, although I could be mistaken.

:popcorn2

I'm guessing I will be passed out and falling asleep in my popcorn before those answers are forthcomming.:cool:

[Jonnyclueless]

Still not going to answer the questions eh kids? Not going to at least go to the king CIT kids (lord of the flys) and pass the questions along?