The north side evidence validated to the point of redundancy

[TheLoneBedouin]

There has to be a point where logical rational individuals choose to accept evidence rather than deny it.

How much validation will it take before you accept this evidence?

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

The number of north side witness accounts has now increased to 13 and the critical independently confirmed flyover witness account of Roosevelt Roberts Jr. has now been released.

View evidence here (http://www.thepentacon.com/northsideflyover.htm).
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/newopeningimage.jpg

The initial reaction and seemingly unanimous consensus regarding the citgo witnesses presented in The PentaCon from the "skeptic" community here at jref has been that they were all innocently mistaken in the exact same way.

Does it really make sense to suggest that such a drastic mistake could be repeated over and over?

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?

Reheat tried to suggest that the "NoC flight path is impossible" but in order to do so he had to rely on the notion that there was no visble bank or wing tilt reported from the witnesses.

This is no longer the case as the north side bank has not only been documented and corroborated by the ANC workers but also by heliport air traffic controller Sean Boger.

Of course the citgo witnesses did not see the plane on the approach like the Arlington Cemetery workers did from the area right in front of the maintenance buildings which is why one set of witnesses saw the bank while the others did not.

Furthermore the approach speed has now been established as significantly slower than reported by the NTSB or estimated from previous accounts.

William Middleton and Sean Boger are very valuable corroborating witnesses to this slower speed.

Naturally this and the now definitive bank changes the entire dynamic of Reheat’s paper rendering it irrelevant to the evidence presented.

In light of this new evidence the true critical thinkers in this forum will be left with a choice. 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.

[HawksFan]

So, I guess the trials and executions should be starting shortly, then?

No?

Huh. I'm sure the revolution will be getting off to a grand start later, then, eh?

Wha? No revolu...really? Well, I'll be buggered.

[T.A.M.]

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

The number of north side witness accounts has now increased to 13 and the critical independently confirmed flyover witness account of Roosevelt Roberts Jr. has now been released.


What, only 13 witnesses at the Pentagon site???? what what what????

lol

Get real. CIT, PFT, are jokes...rejected by their own.

TAM:)

[HyJinX]

Oh brother. Not again. When you say "ALL witnesses" you really mean a very small fraction of all witnesses...correct?

I choose to believe that physical evidence trumps your witnesses.

I hope you're not spending a lot of money on your fantasy stuff. Not a wise investment IMO.

[Quad4_72]

Can anyone explain what this crazed lunatic is talking about? I am lost.

[Drudgewire]

In light of this new evidence the true critical thinkers in this forum will be left with a choice. 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.


There's also option three, which is to point and laugh at you.

I like option three.

[T.A.M.]

TLB, who I think is Aldo, or a close friend, is claiming that 13 witnesses have verified that Flight 77 flew North Of Citgo. Take note that he also claims that ALL of the Pentagon witnesses = 13 witnesses.

TAM:)

[HyJinX]

Quad...the North Side Flyovers are a roller-derby team in Tucson. Apparently these guys created a home movie about them.

[T.A.M.]

I think CIT and PFT are disinfo.

Think about it...fringe theory, which certainly discredits the truth movement as a whole. Run by a few individuals.

Sounds like disinfo to me...lol

TAM:)

[Grizzly Bear]

I guess the other 100+ witnesses have no significance to the 'investigation'..... how surprising... :\

[D'rok]

I wonder how many of these lucky 13 witnesses witnessed the plane hitting the Pentagon?

[ihaunter]

The initial reaction and seemingly unanimous consensus regarding the citgo witnesses presented in The PentaCon from the "skeptic" community here at jref has been that they were all innocently mistaken in the exact same way.

Does it really make sense to suggest that such a drastic mistake could be repeated over and over?

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?


You might be right about such a coincidence being unlikely. What is the common thread? Could it be because all these witnesses were interviewed by individuals with a vested interest in promoting a certain view? Individuals who refuse to release the full interviews?

Nah... couldn't be that.

[nicepants]

I wonder how many of these lucky 13 witnesses witnessed the plane hitting the Pentagon?

Indeed....TLB, why isn't the impact of the plane "validated to the point of redundancy"?

And regarding my still-unanswered question from another thread:

If 10 13 people said that they saw the plane hit a hotel instead of the Pentagon, would this invalidate all evidence to the contrary?


Does it really make sense to suggest that such a drastic mistake could be repeated over and over?

Why wouldn't it? Apparently it makes sense to suggest that they all somehow made a mistake regarding impact...why is it impossible for them to be mistaken about anything else?

[LashL]

Can anyone explain what this crazed lunatic is talking about? I am lost.

See this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=119873)

That's an hour and a half of my life I'll never get back. The video is crap from start to finish.

[Quad4_72]

Quad...the North Side Flyovers are a roller-derby team in Tucson. Apparently these guys created a home movie about them.

Oh alright. That makes much more sense. For a second there I thought he was saying that Flight 77 flew over the north side of the Pentagon suggesting that maybe a missile or something actually hit the Pentagon. But that would be just silly. My apologies TheLoneBedouin.:rolleyes:

[Quad4_72]

See this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=119873)

That's an hour and a half of my life I'll never get back. The video is crap from start to finish.

Interesting. And sad. Also can someone update me on my acronyms? I feel like a CT noob asking this, but what in the hell is CIT and PFT?

[Quad4_72]

I guess the other 100+ witnesses have no significance to the 'investigation'..... how surprising... :\

Duh. I thought that was obvious :p

[WildCat]

Mods, please change the title of this thread to:

Truth Movement Fail Validated To Redundancy

Thank you.

[Confuseling]

With complete howevermanyitisnow-tuple unanimity among the witnesses you'll be wanting to release the original unedited interviews post haste! Hop to it! No time to dawdle here.

[Drudgewire]

Interesting. And sad. Also can someone update me on my acronyms? I feel like a CT noob asking this, but what in the hell is CIT and PFT?


"Citizens Investigative Team" and "Pilots for Truth."

I have different words for the acronyms, but they'd lead to a mod warning. :p

[Rika]

Personally, I thought they were talking about that new derby sport myself..

[JimBenArm]

Interesting. And sad. Also can someone update me on my acronyms? I feel like a CT noob asking this, but what in the hell is CIT and PFT?
CIT = Citizen's Investigative Team. Kinda like a retarded Scooby-Do and gang.

PFT = Pilots For Truth. Kinda like a retarded CIT.

[Quad4_72]

"Citizens Investigative Team" and "Pilots for Truth."

I have different words for the acronyms, but they'd lead to a mod warning. :p

I know what Pilots for """""""""Truth""""""""" is but what the hell is a "Citizens investigative team"?

And yes the extra quotations are necessary for the word "truth" in CF terms.

[CurtC]

I liked the photo - the caption should read

R.I.P.
North Side Flyover Craziness

[Sword_Of_Truth]

There has to be a point where logical rational individuals choose to accept evidence rather than deny it.

How much validation will it take before you accept this evidence?

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

The number of north side witness accounts has now increased to 13 and the critical independently confirmed flyover witness account of Roosevelt Roberts Jr. has now been released.

View evidence here (http://www.thepentacon.com/northsideflyover.htm).
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/newopeningimage.jpg

The initial reaction and seemingly unanimous consensus regarding the citgo witnesses presented in The PentaCon from the "skeptic" community here at jref has been that they were all innocently mistaken in the exact same way.

Does it really make sense to suggest that such a drastic mistake could be repeated over and over?

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?

Reheat tried to suggest that the "NoC flight path is impossible" but in order to do so he had to rely on the notion that there was no visble bank or wing tilt reported from the witnesses.

This is no longer the case as the north side bank has not only been documented and corroborated by the ANC workers but also by heliport air traffic controller Sean Boger.

Of course the citgo witnesses did not see the plane on the approach like the Arlington Cemetery workers did from the area right in front of the maintenance buildings which is why one set of witnesses saw the bank while the others did not.

Furthermore the approach speed has now been established as significantly slower than reported by the NTSB or estimated from previous accounts.

William Middleton and Sean Boger are very valuable corroborating witnesses to this slower speed.

Naturally this and the now definitive bank changes the entire dynamic of Reheat’s paper rendering it irrelevant to the evidence presented.

In light of this new evidence the true critical thinkers in this forum will be left with a choice. 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.

All the knocked over lamp posts were on the south side of the citgo.

Physical evidence > eyewitnesses.

U R bedunked.

[Pardalis]

Total number of people who care beyond the CIT crew= 0

[Hokulele]

Well, considering that "redundant" usually implies "unnecessary", I would have to say they at least got the title of the thread correct.

[beachnut]

I only have this to say about that. - CIT = false ideas

Not one witness said north side in 2001 or 2002. What we have here is…
Pure failure and anyone who has not listened to their witnesses in 2001 and 2002 to hear them DEBUNK everything CIT stands for, and still make OPs like this are pure stupid on this topic.

EXAMPLE FOR OP doltish statement. Boger is used by CIT. He sees 77 hit the Pentagon. A CIT witness debunks you, and CIT. Makes you and CIT lairs on this point about not hitting!


Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief - "I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building." "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."

Let me cut some so you can see the meaning of "watched it hit the building". Which part of "hit the building" are you unable to grasp with your super skeptical MIND?
Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief - "… I just watched it hit the building." "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."

Failed ideas, proven wrong in 2001! How is that for debunking? Sean debunks you from 2001! Hundreds of people DO! Sean never said north of CITGO in 2001 because he watched the plane HIT. The lamppost also tell us 77 hit them. There are parts of 77 that fell off hitting the lamppost and the VOT camera post, but you are not smart enough to research 9/11 more than repeating doltish lies and false information.

I doubt CIT knows what north means, they have problems with math and physics and geometry. CIT has no clue what parallel means, why do you think north means anything?
Are CIT lives are in danger for exposing how dumb they are?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

TLB, who I think is Aldo, or a close friend...

I don't know who it is, nor do I care.

People who have been employed as a Disk Jockey all look alike to me. ;)

[Björn Toulouse]

Gee, this breaking news story on an internet message board. How will the big boys of NBC, ABC, and FOX ever keep up?

[TC329]

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…….

so this is why the guy cleans toilets for a living?

[TC329]

All the knocked over lamp posts were on the south side of the citgo.

Physical evidence > eyewitnesses.

U R bedunked.


you haven't explained what knocked those light poles down because not a single eyewitness saw it happen.

U R debunked. [Edited for civility]

Edited for rule 11.

[jhunter1163]

In light of this new evidence the true critical thinkers in this forum will be left with a choice. 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.

I choose Drudgewire's Option 3.

[Drudgewire]

Gee, this breaking news story on an internet message board. How will the big boys of NBC, ABC, and FOX ever keep up?


We're all part of the same cover-up. In fact, time to come clean... I'm really Katie Couric.

[jhunter1163]

you haven't explained what knocked those light poles down because not a single eyewitness saw it happen.

Lagasse saw it happen. He even sent Dick Eastman an e-mail saying exactly that. Afework Hagos saw it happen too. So did Lloyd England.

[applecorped]

you haven't explained what knocked those light poles down because not a single eyewitness saw it happen.


Bigfoot knocked the light poles down. I saw it but no one else did because they were all watching the plane hit the Pentagon.

[16.5]

So, all your witnesses still say the plane hit the Pentagon?

Yup.

CIT = FAIL.

[pomeroo]

There has to be a point where logical rational individuals choose to accept evidence rather than deny it.

How much validation will it take before you accept this evidence?

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


You have been caught lying again. In fairness, as you are a fantasist, the possibility exists that you are unfamiliar with the words "all" and "unanimously."


{snip-dishonest drivel}


So, when will you ignorant liars ask one of your "witnesses" which of his mutually-exclusive assertions he is willing to abandon? You must be tired of hearing this by now. But, do bear in mind, if you weren't complete frauds and you actually took your nonsense to a real news outlet, it would be the first question you were asked.

[Mr. Skinny]

I certainly appreciate the fact that the OP (TLB) broke the post into easy to read paragraphs/statements.

Thanks, TLB.

[pomeroo]

you haven't explained what knocked those light poles down because not a single eyewitness saw it happen.

U R debunked. [Edited for civility].


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

[gumboot]

There's also option three, which is to point and laugh at you.

I like option three.


On that note...

:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:

[pomeroo]

you haven't explained what knocked those light poles down because not a single eyewitness saw it happen.


I'll explain it for you. A big plane knocked down those light poles.

Let's pretend that nobody did see it happen. Tell us why your imaginary conspiracy neglected to instruct some of its witnesses to claim that they saw it. Must be like the WMD they "forgot" to plant in Iraq, right? Just kind of slipped their minds.



U R debunked. [Edited for civility].


Yes, you have certainly been debunked many times. Your stupid fantasy is quite dead.

[Björn Toulouse]

We're all part of the same cover-up. In fact, time to come clean... I'm really Katie Couric.



Oooooh - I got a pin-up of your colonoscopy in the sitting room. :D

[pomeroo]

I ask the liars this question repeatedly without ever getting a coherent response. I will have no better luck this time around.

Survivors of the Titantic disagreed over the manner of the ship's sinking. Some said it broke in half; others said it went straight down. All of them watched the scene--the most important event of their lives--unfold from nearby lifeboats.

Were the survivors whose memories were incorrect lying about something? Did they prove that the ship didn't sink at all? Please address this matter. What's going on here?

[stateofgrace]

Gee, this breaking news story on an internet message board. How will the big boys of NBC, ABC, and FOX ever keep up?

I cannot take my eyes off BBC NEWS 24, hopefully they will break this massive story soon. :rolleyes:

[robeeb]

There has to be a point where logical rational individuals choose to accept evidence rather than deny it.

How much validation will it take before you accept this evidence?

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

The number of north side witness accounts has now increased to 13 and the critical independently confirmed flyover witness account of Roosevelt Roberts Jr. has now been released.

View evidence here (http://www.thepentacon.com/northsideflyover.htm).
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/newopeningimage.jpg

In light of this new evidence the true critical thinkers in this forum will be left with a choice. 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.

TLB,

You certainly are persistent, I'll give you that. You believe what you believe, and you stick to your guns, nothing wrong with that in my book. But you have to realize that there are people out there who disagree with you, and are just as steadfast and adamant in their beliefs as you. For me, I base my beliefs on knowledge that you are not privvy to. My point of reference is different than yours. Other people's way of seeing things, and interpreting the events of that day are unique to them as well. You don't get to just assign labels and catergorize people with terms like "You can join Caustic Logic" or "join the true skeptics, CIT". It's not A or B, it's not black or white. This is a complex subject, and as such, people come to believe what they do for a myriad of different reasons. Have you ever considered the possibility that you are not going to change the minds of skeptics here, and that you should just agree that we disagree?

[WildCat]

Can the C.I.T. explain this? Looks like airplane to me...

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

[TheLoneBedouin]

Wildcat,
if you are suggesting that the top of that tree was severed due to a plane, then you are agreeing with all of the witnesses in placing the plane high above the ground as opposed to low and level. This is inconsistent with the physical damage and consistent with a flyover.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

you haven't explained what knocked those light poles down because not a single eyewitness saw it happen.

*AHEM*

Father Stephen McGraw was driving to a graveside service at Arlington National Cemetery the morning of Sept. 11, when he mistakenly took the Pentagon exit onto Washington Boulevard, putting him in a position to witness American Airlines Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon. "The traffic was very slow moving, and at one point just about at a standstill," said McGraw, a Catholic priest at St. Anthony Parish in Falls Church. "I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars." McGraw estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon. "The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car. "I saw it crash into the building," he said. "My only memories really were that it looked like a plane coming in for a landing. I mean in the sense that it was controlled and sort of straight. That was my impression," he said. "There was an explosion and a loud noise and I felt the impact. I remember seeing a fireball come out of two windows (of the Pentagon). I saw an explosion of fire billowing through those two windows. "He literally had the stole in one hand and a prayer book in the other and in one fluid motion crossed the guardrail," said Mark Faram, a reporter from the Navy Times who witnessed McGraw in the first moments after the crash.


U R bedunked and OMGWTFPWNED!!!!!111ONE1ROFLMAO

This must be very embarrassing for you. :(

[Mince]

Wildcat,
if you are suggesting that the top of that tree was severed due to a plane, then you are agreeing with all of the witnesses in placing the plane high above the ground as opposed to low and level. This is inconsistent with the physical damage and consistent with a flyover.


Not. Those trees are about the same height as the light poles and there is such a thing as steep dive, which is quite likely what Hanjour did.

[TC329]

I'll explain it for you. A big plane knocked down those light poles.

proof?

Let's pretend that nobody did see it happen.

we're not pretending. the only pretending goin on is you and the lemmings pretending the plane knocked down light poles and caused the damage to the pentagon while approaching over the navy annex on the NoC. thats all the pretending i see goin on.

Must be like the WMD they "forgot" to plant in Iraq, right? Just kind of slipped their minds.

ohhhhhh! i thought if we mentioned anything about bushco other than 9/11 it had to go to the politics forums???

so was bushco telling the truth when they said the patriot act wouldn't be used improperly?

were they telling the truth when they said saddam had wmd's?

were they telling the truth when they said torture was 1 isolated incident that happened at abu ghraib?

were they telling the truth about pat tillman?

jessica lynch?

about secret cia prisons in europe not existing?

about secret prison boats not existing?

how about not sleeping until we had osama bin laden "dead or alive"?

how about all those times?

do you need more examples of your shining leader in all of his glory lying to you because he thinks you are a ****ing idiot?

[beachnut]

you haven't explained what knocked those light poles down because not a single eyewitness saw it happen.

U R debunked. [Edited for civility].
This guy sees the lamppost hit by 77. Darn you are batting ZERO, there are others.
Rodney Washington (400 feet from the lamppost, facing the Pentagon!)

Rodney Washington, a systems engineer for a Pentagon contractor, was stuck in stand-still traffic a few hundred yards from the Pentagon when the American Airlines jet roared overhead from the southwest. ''It was extremely loud, as you can imagine, a plane that size, it was deafening,'' Washington said. The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, Washington said, knocking over light poles before hitting the ground on a helicopter pad just in front of the Pentagon and essentially bouncing into it. It ''landed there and the momentum took it into the Pentagon,'' Washington said. ''There was a very, very brief delay and then it exploded.'' Washington speculated that it could have been worse: ''If it had kept altitude a little bit higher it probably would have landed in the middle of the Pentagon, in that court.'' (the delay, the time it takes sound to travel! Wow)


This is a CIT witness that kills their no impact by 77. The meaning of "watched it hit the building"

Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief - "… I just watched it hit the building." "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."
... debunked 100 percent since 2001. No clue, no rational ideas, just hearsay and conclusion of fantasy. Little airplanes fling under wires, and stupid statements to round out really bad, failed witness interpretations.

Failure. If not for a few DVD sales to real dumb people.

[Mince]

you haven't explained what knocked those light poles down because not a single eyewitness saw it happen.


Even if you were correct...you're not, but if you were...just because it wasn't witnessed does not mean it did not happen.


U R debunked. [Edited for civility].


Great. More high school mentality from truthers. Whood-a-thunk?

[TC329]

*AHEM*

Father Stephen McGraw was driving to a graveside service at Arlington National Cemetery the morning of Sept. 11, when he mistakenly took the Pentagon exit onto Washington Boulevard, putting him in a position to witness American Airlines Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon. "The traffic was very slow moving, and at one point just about at a standstill," said McGraw, a Catholic priest at St. Anthony Parish in Falls Church. "I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars." McGraw estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon. "The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car. "I saw it crash into the building," he said. "My only memories really were that it looked like a plane coming in for a landing. I mean in the sense that it was controlled and sort of straight. That was my impression," he said. "There was an explosion and a loud noise and I felt the impact. I remember seeing a fireball come out of two windows (of the Pentagon). I saw an explosion of fire billowing through those two windows. "He literally had the stole in one hand and a prayer book in the other and in one fluid motion crossed the guardrail," said Mark Faram, a reporter from the Navy Times who witnessed McGraw in the first moments after the crash.


U R bedunked and OMGWTFPWNED!!!!!111ONE1ROFLMAO

This must be very embarrassing for you. :(

yeah this is gonna hurt you way more than it hurts me.... (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5085491450059007792&q=law+to+the+lord&ei=jk6SSOfbKYyC4wKp3tGNCA&hl=en)

U R bedunked and OMGWTFPWNED!!!!!111ONE1ROFLMAO

This must be very embarrassing for you.

[Edited for civility]

Violation of Rule 12: Attack the argument, not the arguer.

[Mince]

[Edited for civility] :D


Oh! It looks like yet another subintellectual truther bites the dust. Mods?

[beachnut]

Can the C.I.T. explain this? Looks like airplane to me...

http://home.mindspring.com/~a.lo/pentagon_damage.jpg
77's wingtip hit that post, a piece of wing tip fell in a ladies car.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1244745f67379301d5.jpg

[stateofgrace]

we're not pretending. the only pretending goin on is you and the lemmings pretending the plane knocked down light poles and caused the damage to the pentagon while approaching over the navy annex on the NoC. thats all the pretending i see goin on.



<snip, pointless political rant >

do you need more examples of your shining leader in all of his glory lying to you because he thinks you are a ****ing idiot?

Actually it wasn't Bush who told anybody that flight77 hit the lamp posts, I am led to believe that people who were there said so.

BTW, have any of the people who were there on that day said they saw anybody planting damaged lamp posts? Anybody come forward at all,claiming involvment in planting any physical evidence of any sort ?

OR did Bush and the nasty MIB tell them to keep quiet, also?

[WildCat]

Wildcat,
if you are suggesting that the top of that tree was severed due to a plane, then you are agreeing with all of the witnesses in placing the plane high above the ground as opposed to low and level. This is inconsistent with the physical damage and consistent with a flyover.
Are you suggesting that in the "official story" the plane goes under the bridge? Burrows into the ground, reappears, and then hits the Pentagon?

Where do you get this stuff?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

What was in that video that you wanted me to see?

Father McGraw confirms that the plane hit the lamp post.

[beachnut]

yeah this is gonna hurt you way more than it hurts me.... (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5085491450059007792&q=law+to+the+lord&ei=jk6SSOfbKYyC4wKp3tGNCA&hl=en)

U R bedunked and OMGWTFPWNED!!!!!111ONE1ROFLMAO

This must be very embarrassing for you.

[Edited for civility]. :D
Many people saw the lamppost knocked down by the 463 KIAS flight 77 as it travel right over their cars. What is your point?

[TC329]

U R debunked. [Edited for civility].

Great. More high school mentality from truthers. Whood-a-thunk?

"TAM' POST #3 : CIT, PFT, are jokes...

"QUAD4_72" POST #5 : Can anyone explain what this crazed lunatic is talking about?

"DRUDGEWIRE" POST#6 : There's also option three, which is to point and laugh at you. I like option three.

"JIMBENARM" POST#22 : CIT = Citizen's Investigative Team. Kinda like a retarded Scooby-Do and gang. PFT = Pilots For Truth. Kinda like a retarded CIT.

RON WEICK POST#40 : your tiny group of low-IQ liars

RON WEICK POST#44 : I ask the liars this question repeatedly

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Oh! It looks like yet another subintellectual truther bites the dust. Mods?

Some people don't have the self esteem to withstand being OMGWTFPWNED!!!!!111ONE1ROFLMAO so they have to resort to name-calling. ;)

[TC329]

Oh! It looks like yet another subintellectual truther bites the dust. Mods?

ooooooooohhhhhhhhhh cross your fingers. :p

[TC329]

What was in that video that you wanted me to see?

Father McGraw confirms that the plane hit the lamp post.


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

[Drudgewire]

"DRUDGEWIRE" POST#6 : There's also option three, which is to point and laugh at you. I like option three.


Hey, he's the one who said there were only two choices. I was simply pointing out the error and backing it up with anecdotal evidence. vhttp://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/shobon.gifv

[Mince]

"TAM' POST #3 : CIT, PFT, are jokes...

"QUAD4_72" POST #5 : Can anyone explain what this crazed lunatic is talking about?

"DRUDGEWIRE" POST#6 : There's also option three, which is to point and laugh at you. I like option three.

"JIMBENARM" POST#22 : CIT = Citizen's Investigative Team. Kinda like a retarded Scooby-Do and gang. PFT = Pilots For Truth. Kinda like a retarded CIT.

RON WEICK POST#40 : your tiny group of low-IQ liars

RON WEICK POST#44 : I ask the liars this question repeatedly

Dude, bad behavior does not allow or excuse other bad behavior. I thought that would be obvious to an intellectual such as yourself. And I don't cross my fingers, but I will hope very hard.

[Grizzly Bear]

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

So TC. What did hit the light poles if not a plane? Or where they planted in real-time in front of hundreds of people on the road?

[beachnut]

"TAM' POST #3 : CIT, PFT, are jokes...

"QUAD4_72" POST #5 : Can anyone explain what this crazed lunatic is talking about?

"DRUDGEWIRE" POST#6 : There's also option three, which is to point and laugh at you. I like option three.

"JIMBENARM" POST#22 : CIT = Citizen's Investigative Team. Kinda like a retarded Scooby-Do and gang. PFT = Pilots For Truth. Kinda like a retarded CIT.

RON WEICK POST#40 : your tiny group of low-IQ liars

RON WEICK POST#44 : I ask the liars this question repeatedly
You are a liar if you say 77 did not hit the Pentagon. Simple stuff.

Did you say 77 did not hit the Pentagon?
Did you say 77 did not knock down the lampposts?
Did you say 77 flew north of the CITGO?

If you answered yes to any of these statements you are a liar. There is enough proof to show you are wrong, but you fail to use it. If you would not lie about these things, then you are not a liar.

Don't get upset, even my brother lies. You are in great company, like with Bush, your favorite, you make up bigger lies! Good job, you can be president, just like Bush, but ...

What is worse you make up the fake evidence to support your lies, that is pathetic.

Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, you are making up lies. With false ideas you make up about 77, you sell DVDs. Stop getting upset and go sell your lies, you know they are lies. If you don’t know you are making up lies, you have a problem.

[WildCat]

proof?
Overwhelming eyewitness and physical evidence.

[16.5]

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

Plane flies over his car, light poles crash to the ground, plane crashed into the Pentagon. Yeah, he only "deduced" that the plane hit the pole.

Wow, ya got him!

And he said he didn't realize he was next to the Pentagon when the plane hit the Pentagon!

That is crack debunking!

By the way, Dom, still waiting for your explanation why Pickering thinks you and your pals are a bunch of frauds.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

All the knocked over lamp posts were on the south side of the citgo.

Physical evidence > eyewitnesses.

U R bedunked.


Not if that evidence was planted! And it was! Because we said so!

I absolutely love how they feel their stupendously complicated fantasy is somehow more plausible than upwards of 13 people being simply mistaken about something.

[Björn Toulouse]

you haven't explained what knocked those light poles down because not a single eyewitness saw it happen.

U R debunked. [Edited for civility]


Did you find any eyewitnesses who observed NWO operatives dismantling those lightpoles and strategically placing them as they were found, or see the guy who lopped off the treetop?

Do you ever follow the stream of your illogical scenarios?

Is this way too big for your little mind?

[WildCat]

I absolutely love how they feel their stupendously complicated fantasy is somehow more plausible than upwards of 13 people being simply mistaken about something.
And all 13 say Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

[Confuseling]

Not if that evidence was planted! And it was! Because we said so!

I absolutely love how they feel their stupendously complicated fantasy is somehow more plausible than upwards of 13 people being simply mistaken about something.

I'm sticking with coached and misrepresented, until I'm given the unexpurgated original interviews.

[Psssst. CIT. THAT'S YOUR CUE...]

[WildCat]

And I'll also point out that the engine sucking in the top of that tree explains the smoke trail in the video.

[bje]

There has to be a point where logical rational individuals choose to accept evidence rather than deny it.

You already agreed with me that CIT denies the evidence

How much validation will it take before you accept this evidence?As you yourself agreed, it would take an investigation of ALL of the evidence and all of the key eyewitnesses.

The north side evidence is not a theory. It is what all the witnesses unanimously report.You already agreed with me that the so-called "North Side witnesses" were not all the witnesses.

Tell us all here why you changed your mind, TLB? Did CIT have to pay you a lot of money to change your story? How is it that over 1,000 witnesses magically turned into 13 witnesses?

Remember, TLB, you're on record in this forum.

[Drudgewire]

Do you ever follow the stream of your illogical scenarios?


Regardless of which theory they support, which questions they think are the most valid, which clique they fall into, there are two words they all have to work into the equation somehow:

Popular Mechanics

If PM isn't "in on it," there's not a single 9/11 CT which can begin to make sense, because they couldn't possibly be SO thorough and just be mistaken. They either truly confirm the mythical "official version," or they systematically engaged in the cover-up with smoke and mirrors in an attempt to stifle the "truth."

Popular Mechanics is, for the most part, a car magazine. A magazine which has been around since 1902. Their explanation is "people were asking questions, we wanted to find the answers. We're into that sort of thing."

For PM to be on it, there are only two possible scenarios:

1. The NWO had been running a magazine for 99 years preparing to use it as a tool for when their grand plan would finally come to fruition... the whole time masquerading as an innocuous dentist's office mag talking about crank shafts.

2. The NWO took over an entire writing staff, or spent years filtering them into their positions, and replaced the original science geeks with their own disinfo scientists without anyone ever complaining or noticing for that matter. And finally, presenting this fraud to a public (including some smart guys) who just weren't smart enough to see through the lies theologians and paranoids do.


Now, what was that about being illogical? ;)

[DGM]

Did you find any eyewitnesses who observed NWO operatives dismantling those lightpoles and strategically placing them as they were found, or see the guy who lopped off the treetop?

Do you ever follow the stream of your illogical scenarios?

Is this way too big for your little mind?
Didn't you know, the NWO has a time machine? That's the only way I can figure they could have done the hours of work it would have taken to set up the scene as perfect as it was.

Hey, tell me this idea isn't anymore moronic than everything the "truthers" have come up with.

[John Blonn]

I prefer the west side of the CITGO theory myself.

Oh, and ask me about the flyunder! Flyunder makes more sense because it explains why no one saw a plane fly away.

[DGM]

I prefer the west side of the CITGO theory myself.

Oh, and ask me about the flyunder! Flyunder makes more sense because it explains why no one saw a plane fly away.
Retractable lawn. Now your thinking outside the box.:cool: Just add the time machine and we got ourselves a real solution.:rolleyes:

[pomeroo]

proof?


Much proof--overwhelming proof: Wreckage of AA Flight 77 found inside the Pentagon and on the lawn; remains of passengers and crew found inside the Pentagon and identified by DNA testing; phones calls from airliner.



we're not pretending. the only pretending goin on is you and the lemmings pretending the plane knocked down light poles and caused the damage to the pentagon while approaching over the navy annex on the NoC. thats all the pretending i see goin on.


To be precise, you and your fellow cretins are lying.



ohhhhhh! i thought if we mentioned anything about bushco other than 9/11 it had to go to the politics forums???

so was bushco telling the truth when they said the patriot act wouldn't be used improperly?


Yes, they certainly were telling the truth.



were they telling the truth when they said saddam had wmd's?


The intelligence they relied on agreed with the intelligence of EVERY OTHER NATION MONITORING IRAQ, as you know.



were they telling the truth when they said torture was 1 isolated incident that happened at abu ghraib?


Yes.


were they telling the truth about pat tillman?


Irrelevant. The military's original spin of Tillman's death was shown to be false by an investigation conducted by the military, as you know.



jessica lynch?

Again, Bush said nothing about Jessica Lynch, as you know. The military's original spin was corrected by the military.



about secret cia prisons in europe not existing?

Irrelevant. Bush said nothing about CIA secret prisons.



about secret prison boats not existing?


You've been exposed. It's time to quit. Again, Bush said nothing--as you know.



how about not sleeping until we had osama bin laden "dead or alive"?


Gee, does that mean you braindead liars admit Osama exists?



how about all those times?


Yup, you've got absolutely nothing.



do you need more examples of your shining leader in all of his glory lying to you because he thinks you are a ****ing idiot?


One example might be nice. I won't hold my breath.

[pomeroo]

"TAM' POST #3 : CIT, PFT, are jokes...

"QUAD4_72" POST #5 : Can anyone explain what this crazed lunatic is talking about?

"DRUDGEWIRE" POST#6 : There's also option three, which is to point and laugh at you. I like option three.

"JIMBENARM" POST#22 : CIT = Citizen's Investigative Team. Kinda like a retarded Scooby-Do and gang. PFT = Pilots For Truth. Kinda like a retarded CIT.

RON WEICK POST#40 : your tiny group of low-IQ liars

RON WEICK POST#44 : I ask the liars this question repeatedly


We missed your answer to the question about the Impossibly vast Conspiracy's unfathomable failure to instruct its witnesses on how to account for the light poles.

Oh, that's right: you were unable to answer.

My name is spelled W-I-E-C-K. You've been misspelling it for a long time. There must be limits to your obtuseness.

[pomeroo]

Not if that evidence was planted! And it was! Because we said so!

I absolutely love how they feel their stupendously complicated fantasy is somehow more plausible than upwards of 13 people being simply mistaken about something.


There is nothing to suggest that the thirteen cherry-picked witnesses to an impossible flight path really said anything resembling what the liars claim they said. Let's see what they'd say in the presence of a rationalist.

[pomeroo]

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


Duh, why would your imaginary conspiracy knock down light poles without assembling bogus witnesses to claim that they saw it happen?

Normally, I would end with, "Think about it." In your case, the request would be silly.

[pomeroo]

Duh, why would your imaginary conspiracy knock down light poles without assembling bogus witnesses to claim that they saw it happen?

Normally, I would end with, "Think about it." In your case, the request would be silly.


Just to spell it out with alphabet blocks, you have two choices:

1) You can acknowledge what we all know, i.e., that there are witnesses to the plane hitting the poles, in which case you have established that you were lying;

2) You can argue that the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy neglected to create any witnesses for an act they fabricated for reasons that cannot possibly make any sense.

I'm not expecting a reply.

[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?

[John Blonn]

Why is it that Truthers won't accept anything less than absurdly specific and detailed evidential standards, meanwhile they have no problem putting forward theories based on the flimsiest of evidence under the guise of 'just asking questions?'

For instance, to prove a plane at the Pentagon we need photos of plane parts with serial numbers that can be traced (by whom? who would the truthers trust?) back to Flight 77, or we need photos of plane parts and bodies at Shanksville (presumably with serial numbers), meanwhile they can argue that WTC7 was CD 'because doesn't it look like one?'

They are not required, of course, to present photos of unexploded demo charges with serial numbers that can be traced back to Cheney and W.

If we were the ones arguing for CD by Al Qaeda operatives, say, you'd have truthers crying that we have no photographic evidence of demo charges.

[TC329]

Dude, bad behavior does not allow or excuse other bad behavior. I thought that would be obvious to an intellectual such as yourself. And I don't cross my fingers, but I will hope very hard.

Dude, you do admit that the quotes i listed are "More high school mentality from truthers duh-bunkers."???


Whood-a-thunk? :D

[TC329]

Much proof--overwhelming proof: Wreckage of AA Flight 77 found inside the Pentagon and on the lawn; remains of passengers and crew found inside the Pentagon and identified by DNA testing; phones calls from airliner.





To be precise, you and your fellow cretins are lying.





Yes, they certainly were telling the truth.





The intelligence they relied on agreed with the intelligence of EVERY OTHER NATION MONITORING IRAQ, as you know.





Yes.




Irrelevant. The military's original spin of Tillman's death was shown to be false by an investigation conducted by the military, as you know.




Again, Bush said nothing about Jessica Lynch, as you know. The military's original spin was corrected by the military.




Irrelevant. Bush said nothing about CIA secret prisons.





You've been exposed. It's time to quit. Again, Bush said nothing--as you know.





Gee, does that mean you braindead liars admit Osama exists?





Yup, you've got absolutely nothing.





One example might be nice. I won't hold my breath.

so if i go back and change "bush" to the "bush administration" that would mean that you have to change all your answers, right?

because people weren't asking the pittsburgh steelers about torture or secret cia prisons, etc. they weren't asking jack black & jim carey. they weren't asking lou dobbs or sean hannity.....

who were they asking those questions to ron?

[16.5]

Dude, you do admit that the quotes i listed are "More high school mentality from truthers duh-bunkers."???

Whood-a-thunk? :D

It is funny, JREF'ers look on CIT as incompetent clowns, but other Truthers HATE these jokers.

Who'd a Thunk?

[beachnut]

Dude, you do admit that the quotes i listed are "More high school mentality from truthers duh-bunkers."???


Whood-a-thunk? :D

Not even on topic, why are you so distracted by your false ideas?

Your witnesses saw 77 hit the Pentagon, that makes your made up ideas false.

The biggest smoking gun of your incompetence to produce a real conclusion is your inability, complete inability to present a path that is possible to fly in a 757 (or any plane, based on witnesses). Pure idiot ideas and fantasy that you can't even find a path a aircraft can fly to perform your fantasy.

No viable path, witnesses that make your ideas lies, when will you just tell the truth, you are helping to sell false paranoid ideas to people who beeves in dumb ideas and buy those DVD of stupid.

The funniest stuff you guys do, is producing witnesses who clearly saw 77 hit the Pentagon! Then you make up lies! FUNNY and sick, CIT, citizen investigation team, Pentacon, as in conning people out of money for your lies, is the dumbest investigation junk I have ever seen; there is a movie here so sick and stupid it will beat "Hitler In Springtime". Please tell me, are you a neoNAZI, or just acting like one? The only other people who make up this many wild, crazy, dumb, false ideas are those I found to be neoNAZIs. JAQ, and since you are so far off topic…

NoC has zero path! CIT has failed to make a viable story.

[pomeroo]

so if i go back and change "bush" to the "bush administration" that would mean that you have to change all your answers, right?

because people weren't asking the pittsburgh steelers about torture or secret cia prisons, etc. they weren't asking jack black & jim carey. they weren't asking lou dobbs or sean hannity.....

who were they asking those questions to ron?


Enough of this silly drivel. Your conspiracy doesn't exist. Bush and the military are not identical. The Bush administration is not the same as the military. I don't give a rat's patoot about CIA "secret" prisons. I wish they existed and more terrorists were in them.

Stop ducking the questions I ask.

[ihaunter]

The thing that boggles my mind about the CIT crew, is how can they not see that every argument they put forward to strengthen the supposed "North of Citgo" claims apply equally to the claims that the plane hit the Pentagon. And I do mean EVERY argument. Granted, it seems for them, "every argument" is really just the one, that they have multiple individuals saying the same thing. (Supposedly) But it does apply equally to them saying the plane hit the Pentagon.
This is such an amazingly obvious point, especially with so many here reminding them of it, I just don't understand how they don't see it.

[OldTigerCub]

I prefer the west side of the CITGO theory myself.

Oh, and ask me about the flyunder! Flyunder makes more sense because it explains why no one saw a plane fly away.

Retractable lawn. Now your thinking outside the box.:cool: Just add the time machine and we got ourselves a real solution.:rolleyes:

Hey, y'all may be onto something there!

And I have a witness to a "fly-under" (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.32.html)(sort of...well at least as well misrepresented and interpreted in pffft - CIT terms :rolleyes: )!!!!111!!!

We do also have somebody to talk with us who was an eyewitness to the actual crash. He was watch from Arlington, Virginia, which is a suburb. His name is Tim Timmerman.

Mr. Timmerman, are you with us right now?

TIM TIMMERMAN, EYEWITNESS: I sure am.

FRANKEN: You are a pilot. Tell us what you saw.

TIMMERMAN: I was looking out the window; I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the Pentagon, in a corner apartment, so I have quite a panorama. And being next to National Airport, I hear jets all the time, but this jet engine was way too loud. I looked out to the southwest, and it came right down 395, right over Colombia Pike, and as is went by the Sheraton Hotel, the pilot added power to the engines. I heard it pull up a little bit more, and then I lost it behind a building.

And then it came out, and I saw it hit right in front of -- it didn't appear to crash into the building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground, but I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward, and then the conflagration engulfed everything in flames. It was horrible.

FRANKEN: What can you tell us about the plane itself?

TIMMERMAN: It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question.

FRANKEN: You say that it was a Boeing, and you say it was a 757 or 767?

TIMMERMAN: 7-5-7.

FRANKEN: 757, which, of course...

TIMMERMAN: American Airlines.

FRANKEN: American Airlines, one of the new generation of jets.

TIMMERMAN: Right. It was so close to me it was like looking out my window and looking at a helicopter. It was just right there.


It hit the ground! It must have gone under the Pentagon!!! I have witnesses!!1!11!!!!!!

(can I start selling DVDs now?):rolleyes:

[OldTigerCub]

It is funny, JREF'ers look on CIT as incompetent clowns, but other Truthers HATE these jokers.

Who'd a Thunk?

One has to admit that JREFers have given them plenty of time to present their evidence, and they have not been thrown out for expressing their views here. On the other hand, I seem to recall they were banned at the 911blogger (and others?) forum.:rolleyes:

Edit: correction...not really a forum at 911blogger, but banned from posting or making comments IIRC.

[beachnut]

so if i go back and change "bush" to the "bush administration" that would mean that you have to change all your answers, right?

because people weren't asking the pittsburgh steelers about torture or secret cia prisons, etc. they weren't asking jack black & jim carey. they weren't asking lou dobbs or sean hannity.....

who were they asking those questions to ron?
Bush is behind you guys in making up lies, you have him beat. Why are you off topic on junk not related to 9/11 events. No wonder you lack the judgment to tie information into a coherent story on 9/11. Even the high speed impact of aircraft has you bewildered.

The thread is about the lies of CIT and misinterpreting witnesses. Why is CIT so bad at this?


At least you beat Bush in making up lies. Good job. Why is it Boger saw 77 hit the Pentagon and you CIT guys make up lies about that?

[Grizzly Bear]

so Tc. What did Hit The Light Poles If Not A Plane? Or Where They Planted In real-time In Front Of Hundreds Of People On The Road?

Bump

[TC329]

other Truthers HATE these jokers.

Who'd a Thunk?


i challenge you to start naming truthers that "HATE" cit.


oh what you can't provide any real names?

who'd a thunk it? ;)

[pomeroo]

i challenge you to start naming truthers that "HATE" cit.


oh what you can't provide any real names?

who'd a thunk it? ;)


I'm not interested in learning what fleas think of lice.

I challenge you to respond to posts 84 and 85.

[TC329]

Edit: correction...not really a forum at 911blogger, but banned from posting or making comments IIRC.


cit was banned at 911blogger because of public allegations of gatekeeping i levied against gatekeeper reprehensor.

cit's work was supported by the readers and members of 911blogger. it was some members of the administration that are gatekeepers who banned cit because of my words.

i dont believe it was fair that craig and aldo were punished because of my words.

i am a very vocal and very opinionated individual who never hesitates to speak up. after seeing their them be punished for my actions i made a decision to remove cit from my name in order to prevent other gatekeepers from inventing reasons to suppress it. i don't want my words to harm anyone's work in this movement. that is never my goal or intention.

now anything i say can only be held against me. that is a lot more fair.

i still strongly support cit and other organizations such as pft and am very closely affiliated with both. however, i do not nor do i want to speak on either organization's behalf. that is not fair to their work. it is better if i speak of it from an independent stand point.

Edited for civility

[TC329]

Enough of this silly drivel. Your conspiracy doesn't exist. Bush and the military are not identical. The Bush administration is not the same as the military. I don't give a rat's patoot about CIA "secret" prisons. I wish they existed and more terrorists were in them.

Stop ducking the questions I ask.

i'm confused ron.....you do this to me sometimes i must get caught up inside the vortex created by you spinning like a top but last i checked bush was commander-in-chief of that military.

correct me where i am wrong....?

we'll see how much you support torture in secret prison boats when the liberal half of the dictatorship is running things. i have a feelin you might change your opinion of it when the clintons get to decide who the "terrorists" are........

[TC329]

I'm not interested in learning what fleas think of lice.

I challenge you to respond to posts 84 and 85.

because you know its a bogus claim.

one of those lies that if repeated enough lurkers might start to believe is true.

but it is the lie.

[TC329]

Duh, why would your imaginary conspiracy knock down light poles without assembling bogus witnesses to claim that they saw it happen?

how many light poles were laying off in the grass somewhere out of the 5?

4 you say?

how hard would those have been to put there at say 3am [for example purpose only] under the cover of night by a black op squad? not hard at all you say?

how many people drivin by would be looking over the guardrails down at the grass looking for lightpoles on the morning of 9/11? most likely absolutely nobody you say?

hmmmmm then we have just 1 scene which then validates every claim attributed to this event and that's the lloyd england scene.

lloyd england tells a story of impalement that is impossible.

when asked how he and a perfect stranger removed the pole from his cab lloyd is dumbstruck and cannot even answer because he does not know.

and then you got the light pole which you can tell from the big groove in the street was actually drug over to be in front of lloyds cab.....

then the ingersol photos proved that lloyd wasnt even bothered by this traumatic experience because he and this perfect stranger hurried and removed the pole from his cab in less than 5 minutes after the event.....

hmmmmmmmm

Normally, I would end with, "Think about it." In your case, the request would be silly.

pot. kettle. black.

[nicepants]

Of the 100+ eyewitnesses who said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon, how many have you guys (cit) interviewed?

[TC329]

Just to spell it out with alphabet blocks, you have two choices:

1) You can acknowledge what we all know, i.e., that there are witnesses to the plane hitting the poles, in which case you have established that you were lying;

2) You can argue that the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy neglected to create any witnesses for an act they fabricated for reasons that cannot possibly make any sense.

I'm not expecting a reply.


the reasons are very simple. people walk by see lloyds scene then see light poles laying on the ground and the natural deduction after hearing a plane just fly by into the pentagon would be that the plane must have knocked them down....

lot of people in the press said they saw it......

but then you go ask lagasse and sucherman and so on and you find out that none of them actually saw it. they saw the light poles and then deduced it. then stating the plane knocked down light poles on its way in becomes part of the story even though they themselves somehow didn't witness that particular aspect but do know a low flying plane came in so it had to happen......

seems they would have the best kind of witnesses. honest everyday american citizens. maybe even one or two who embellish the account a little more after finding that out in order to be like 'ohhhh here is what happened to me' as if the story without that particular aspect wasn't amazing enough already.

it doesn't suprise me your incapable of understanding how the human mind works. you believe saddam had wmd's and didn't use them just gave them to the syrians instead for a reason that is beyond comprehension especially seeing how he ended up swinging in a noose.

Normally, I would end with, "Think about it." In your case, the request would be silly.

again......

[TheLoneBedouin]

William Middleton and Sean Boger are very valuable corroborating witnesses to this slower speed.
The slower speed is also corroborated by Morin, who estimates that it took "13 to 18 seconds" to pass from the Navy Annex to impact.
Interestingly, Middleton also corroborates Steve Chaconas' loop over Washington- as do the initial radar reports.

[TC329]

Of the 100+ eyewitnesses who said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon, how many have you guys (cit) interviewed?


and this is intentional disinfo from you jason. is that all you can do is create circles?

you know this answer.

you've seen this list plenty of times before. (http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82)

[Mince]

Dude, you do admit that the quotes i listed are "More high school mentality from truthers duh-bunkers."???


Whood-a-thunk? :D


Pssst. Maybe you didn't get the memo. Bad behavior does not allow or excuse other bad behavior...for anybody.

[TC329]

I challenge you to respond to posts 84 and 85.

done.

now since you've admitted publicly many times to never having actually watched any interview conducted by cit i challenge you to go watch The North Side Flyover (www.thepentacon.com)

and come back and explain why each individual is wrong.

although i already know you're not going to.

[TC329]

Pssst. Maybe you didn't get the memo. Bad behavior does not allow or excuse other bad behavior...for anybody.

just curious to see if you supported the statements of your colleagues....you didn't answer the question. you didn't think i wouldn't realize that did you?

so how come you don't point out their actions to them when they do it?

[John Blonn]

Among the many things I don't get about CIT's theory, the following is the most confusing. TC, perhaps you could enlighten me?

Government's plan: Fly the plane North of the Citgo. Flyover coordinated with explosion to hide the plane.

But then...fake physical damage along a DIFFERENT flight path? Why? Why ever do this? This makes NO SENSE whatsoever. Why not replicate damage to the Pentagon and surrounding environment that fits with the North of Citgo path? Not only does the flyover and the like have to go unnoticed, but they also set up light poles across a different path, set up bombs in the Pentagon that don't fit with a North of Citgo path, cause damage to the surroundings of the Pentagon that don't fit with the North path, etc. etc.

Why not create 'real' damage along the North path, rather then take the huge risk of faking damage across the South side path? This is completely illogical.

Your thoughts TC?

[TheLoneBedouin]

Of the 100+ eyewitnesses who said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon, how many have you guys (cit) interviewed?
A sizable portion. Practically all the witnesses who could have seen the last moments of the flight path have been interviewed and they all place the plane on the North side of the Citgo. Middleton and Lagasse wouldn't have been able to see the plane at all if it was on the official fllight path- yet mysteriously they both hallucinated the plane on the opposite side of the Citgo. Whatever you believe about 9/11, you can't, in good conscience, ignore this evidence.

[Mince]

you've seen this list plenty of times before. (http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82)


Oh this is classic. Among that list is (according to CIT):


Claims plane an American Airlines:
Richard Benedetto
James R. Cissell
Dennis Clem
Mike Dobbs, Marine Cmdr.
Penny Elgas
Cheryl Hammond
Joe Harrington
William Lagasse (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT)
Lincoln Leibner, Army Major
Elaine McCusker
Mitch Mitchell, Ret. Army Col. CBS news correspondent
Terry Morin, Former USMC aviator (CONTACTED by CIT, would not return phone calls)
Christopher Munsey, Navy Times reporter
Vin Narayanan (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
John O'Keefe (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
Steve Riskus
Mike Walter
Joel Sucherman (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
Frank Probst (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
James Ryan
Steve Storti
Tim Timmerman
Michael Tinyk (dark orange and blue) (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT)
Alan Wallace (white airplane with orange and blue trim)
Ian Wyatt
Afework Hagos (according to writer)(CONTACT ATTEMPTED by CIT)

(25 total)



The very implication made by CIT is that witnesses can often be very wrong, yet the only evidence they use to support their wild speculations is...ready for this...WITNESSES.


Classic CIT

[pomeroo]

i'm confused ron.....


Yes, you are spectacularly confused. No argument there.



you do this to me sometimes i must get caught up inside the vortex created by you spinning like a top but last i checked bush was commander-in-chief of that military.

correct me where i am wrong....?


You are one of those rare people who rarely gets anything right. You combine dishonesty, obtuseness, and sheer rock-headed imperviousness to reason to such a degree that you could be a 9/11 fantasist. Oh, wait--!

Yes, Bush is the commander-in-chief. Now, what that has to do with specific statements made by spokespersons for the military is anybody's guess.



we'll see how much you support torture in secret prison boats when the liberal half of the dictatorship is running things. i have a feelin you might change your opinion of it when the clintons get to decide who the "terrorists" are........


I was no fan of Bill Clinton. He was a crook and a liar. But he certainly understood who the terrorists were. There is no dictatorship, left or right. Obama would be a bad president because he is clueless about the jihadists, not because I think he is a jihadist. I wasn't born yesterday. Life goes on, whether a Republican or a Democrat occupies the White House. Any President who wants to handle evil, murderous barbarians roughly is my kind of guy.

[Mince]

just curious to see if you supported the statements of your colleagues....you didn't answer the question. you didn't think i wouldn't realize that did you?

so how come you don't point out their actions to them when they do it?


I do and have. Why do you presume otherwise? Posting on a message board makes people colleagues?

[pomeroo]

Among the many things I don't get about CIT's theory, the following is the most confusing. TC, perhaps you could enlighten me?

Government's plan: Fly the plane North of the Citgo. Flyover coordinated with explosion to hide the plane.

But then...fake physical damage along a DIFFERENT flight path? Why? Why ever do this? This makes NO SENSE whatsoever. Why not replicate damage to the Pentagon and surrounding environment that fits with the North of Citgo path? Not only does the flyover and the like have to go unnoticed, but they also set up light poles across a different path, set up bombs in the Pentagon that don't fit with a North of Citgo path, cause damage to the surroundings of the Pentagon that don't fit with the North path, etc. etc.

Why not create 'real' damage along the North path, rather then take the huge risk of faking damage across the South side path? This is completely illogical.

Your thoughts TC?


You are asking the same sort of question that caused TC to short-circuit in his hysterical non-answer to my posts 84 and 85. He is hopelessly trapped.

[TheLoneBedouin]

But then...fake physical damage along a DIFFERENT flight path?
Good question! Unfortunately, we don't have the data to answer it. It's possible that the damage required needed to be precise (which would account for the physical damage) and the plane was merely flown NOC precisely because they wanted to avoid hitting light poles. It could also simply have been a mistake- we won't know until we have a new independent investigation.

[John Blonn]

Good question! Unfortunately, we don't have the data to answer it. It's possible that the damage required needed to be precise (which would account for the physical damage) and the plane was merely flown NOC precisely because they wanted to avoid hitting light poles. It could also simply have been a mistake- we won't know until we have a new independent investigation.

I will come back to your first explanation in a little bit. Let's start with your second contention, that it was a "mistake."

Before I go on to this, I have a question about the flyover theory. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the bombs set up in the Pentagon were set to explode in just such a way (timing, angle, etc.) to hide the plane from view as it flew over? So in other words the bombs were set to hide a plane flying over the Pentagon from a North of Citgo path, correct?

[pomeroo]

the reasons are very simple. people walk by see lloyds scene then see light poles laying on the ground and the natural deduction after hearing a plane just fly by into the pentagon would be that the plane must have knocked them down....

lot of people in the press said they saw it......

but then you go ask lagasse and sucherman and so on and you find out that none of them actually saw it. they saw the light poles and then deduced it. then stating the plane knocked down light poles on its way in becomes part of the story even though they themselves somehow didn't witness that particular aspect but do know a low flying plane came in so it had to happen......

seems they would have the best kind of witnesses. honest everyday american citizens. maybe even one or two who embellish the account a little more after finding that out in order to be like 'ohhhh here is what happened to me' as if the story without that particular aspect wasn't amazing enough already.

it doesn't suprise me your incapable of understanding how the human mind works. you believe saddam had wmd's and didn't use them just gave them to the syrians instead for a reason that is beyond comprehension especially seeing how he ended up swinging in a noose.



again......


You've been caught lying again. The adults here noticed that you can't begin to explain why your imaginary conspiracy would create physical evidence without fabricating witnesses to support it. Your problem is an easy one to solve: it's absurd. OF COURSE A REAL CONSPIRACY WOULD COORDINATE ITS EVIDENCE WITH ITS WITNESSES. EVERYONE gets that idea.

I have exposed your lies about Saddam's WMD often enough. You are beaten. The intelligence services of all nations monitoring Iraq agreed with the assessment of U.S. intelligence. There is nothing more to be said.

[pomeroo]

I will come back to your first explanation in a little bit. Let's start with your second contention, that it was a "mistake."

Before I go on to this, I have a question about the flyover theory. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the bombs set up in the Pentagon were set to explode in just such a way (timing, angle, etc.) to hide the plane from view as it flew over? So in other words the bombs were set to hide a plane flying over the Pentagon from a North of Citgo path, correct?


This one should send the liar packing.

[TheLoneBedouin]

Are you suggesting that in the "official story" the plane goes under the bridge? Burrows into the ground, reappears, and then hits the Pentagon?
Not at all.
You posted a pick of a tree which appeared to have been flattened horizontally at the top- since the official story doesn't have the plane leveling out at that altitude your post does not support the official story. (BTW the tree's shape appears normal to me, but this is what you posted).

[pomeroo]

done.


No, you were exposed as a liar.



now since you've admitted publicly many times to never having actually watched any interview conducted by cit i challenge you to go watch The North Side Flyover (http://www.thepentacon.com)

and come back and explain why each individual is wrong.

although i already know you're not going to.


The moronic frauds of the CIT are not worth my time. When any of the liars are willing to interview a "witness" in the presence of a rationalist, let us know.

[pomeroo]

The slower speed is also corroborated by Morin, who estimates that it took "13 to 18 seconds" to pass from the Navy Annex to impact.
Interestingly, Middleton also corroborates Steve Chaconas' loop over Washington- as do the initial radar reports.


You and your fellow liars steadfastly avoid the question about the survivors of the Titantic. So, tell us: what does it mean that people watching the same event draw very different conclusions? Does it prove that the ship didn't sink? Explain.

[TheLoneBedouin]

Before I go on to this, I have a question about the flyover theory. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the bombs set up in the Pentagon were set to explode in just such a way (timing, angle, etc.) to hide the plane from view as it flew over? So in other words the bombs were set to hide a plane flying over the Pentagon from a North of Citgo path, correct?
Yes, to the extant that it could actually 'hide' the flyover. It also served to 'distract'. Interestingly, one of the witnesses (Stafford) reports seeing a jet behind the fireball in his Military History interview, though this was not corroborated by CIT.

[pomeroo]

because you know its a bogus claim.

one of those lies that if repeated enough lurkers might start to believe is true.

but it is the lie.


This mindless gibberish sounds like a concession speech.

[16.5]

i challenge you to start naming truthers that "HATE" cit.

oh what you can't provide any real names?

who'd a thunk it? ;)

I can't?? How about Russell Pickering? He called you guys frauds to your faces.

How about Caustic Logic (a/k/a Adam Larson) He posts here (although, he seems to mock you guys more than hate you)

How about Dylan Avery? He booted your asses off the old LC board.

How about the guy who runs the "letsroll forums"? He really hates you, and your whiny pal Aldo almost quit the new LC board when JFK would not kick him off (what a pansy!)?

How about "Arabesque" He called you disinfo. Oh wait that is not a "real name," right? Tell you what, you tell us your buddy Killtown's name, and I'll tell you Arabesque's, deal?

How about the new LC board? Oh, wait, I'll give you that, Dom. They just ignore you.

So you are the losers of the dumb class. Good job, Dom.

[Myriad]

Since CIT had already demonstrated to all of our satisfaction that it could mislead, misinterpret, and misrepresent four witnesses, why do they expect us to be surprised or impressed that, given a little more time to work on it, they can mislead, misinterpret, and misrepresent thirteen?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[John Blonn]

Good question! Unfortunately, we don't have the data to answer it. It's possible that the damage required needed to be precise (which would account for the physical damage) and the plane was merely flown NOC precisely because they wanted to avoid hitting light poles. It could also simply have been a mistake- we won't know until we have a new independent investigation.

You know what, I'm LOLing too hard about the first claim to wait.

Here's the deadly problem with your first attempt.

You claim that the conspirators wanted 'precise' damage. You didn't define what you meant by this, but I'm going to assume you meant that they wanted the South side path to be as 'realistic' as possible, i.e. wanted the physical evidence to replicate as close as possible what would happen if the plane had 'really' flew across the South path.

So, therefore, you allege, they flew the plane to the North in order to prevent...

Wait.

Hold on.

You're trying to make me buy this: The conspirators flew the plane away from the South side path because they didn't want it to cause damage across the South side path...but wouldn't this be the MOST PRECISE WAY of causing damage across the South?

Again, you wrote: "It's possible that the damage required needed to be precise (which would account for the physical damage) and the plane was merely flown NOC precisely because they wanted to avoid hitting light poles." What you're saying here is that the conspirators didn't want to fly the plane on the South side on the off chance that it hit something on the South side, revealing that the plane was...flying on the South side? That it's easier to fly the plane on the North and create fake damage on the South rather than actually just flying the plane to the south and letting the plane make the damage?


Instead of flying the plane to the south and ACTUALLY knocking down the poles, the conspirators actually decided to fly it on the North path so as to not knock down light poles, and then go ahead and prefab light poles and make them look like the plane flew to the South? What?

Could you please explain in more depth what you meant by your statement?

[16.5]

Yes, to the extant that it could actually 'hide' the flyover. It also served to 'distract'. Interestingly, one of the witnesses (Stafford) reports seeing a jet behind the fireball in his Military History interview, though this was not corroborated by CIT.

Really?

Russell Pickering told the CIT that “I have witnesses with footage of the area behind the Pentagon at the moment of impact that I have talked to in great detail. They had three cameras running. They SWEAR that nothing flew over the building. So who is right? The video shows that if your imaginary flyover happened the plane would have had to go significantly south. There were multiple people there watching. NOTHING flew over according to them.”

[John Blonn]

Yes, to the extant that it could actually 'hide' the flyover. It also served to 'distract'. Interestingly, one of the witnesses (Stafford) reports seeing a jet behind the fireball in his Military History interview, though this was not corroborated by CIT.

You've been trapped.

A mistake could not have been made, as you allege.

A bomb set up like this implies that the conspirators INTENDED to fly the plane to the North side. For the timing, the angle, and all to work out, for the witnesses to see the plane to the North, 'hit' the Pentagon, but actually get away, the conspirators would have had to PLAN to fly the plane to the North.

And yet, they create damage to the South path...

In conclusion: A mistake was not possible.

QED

[TC329]

Among the many things I don't get about CIT's theory, the following is the most confusing. TC, perhaps you could enlighten me?

Government's plan: Fly the plane North of the Citgo. Flyover coordinated with explosion to hide the plane.

But then...fake physical damage along a DIFFERENT flight path? Why? Why ever do this? This makes NO SENSE whatsoever.

Your thoughts TC?

there are many variables....

for example had there been a pilot of hani hanjour's true ability it could crash way before the target or way after the target.

taking a 757 and slamming it into the pentagon is a lot harder than some armchair researchers would leave you to believe.

the target was specific. hani can't fly this into donald rumsfelds lap for example he must hit the exact target with military precision.

so there are many many variants for what could actually go wrong which is why the original drills regarding such an attack were deemed "too unrealisitic".

the day before the attacks rumsfeld announced trillions of dollars was missing. the day after he did so the people tracing that info were dead and all the records in regards to all of these taxpayer dollars were destroyed by hani hanjour and company.

you always look to see who benefits in any investigation. time has showed us who has benefitted.

go read pnac's rebuilding america.

look where we are.

[pomeroo]

Yes, to the extant that it could actually 'hide' the flyover. It also served to 'distract'. Interestingly, one of the witnesses (Stafford) reports seeing a jet behind the fireball in his Military History interview, though this was not corroborated by CIT.


Yoo-hoo! Did the survivors who thought the Titanic went straight down prove that the ship didn't sink? Explain your answer.

[TheLoneBedouin]

You and your fellow liars steadfastly avoid the question about the survivors of the Titantic. So, tell us: what does it mean that people watching the same event draw very different conclusions? Does it prove that the ship didn't sink? Explain.
Testimony from people literally dieing in sub-zero ocean water, trying to muster the last ounce of energy to clasp on to a floating plank so as to avoid drowning, differ with regard to how the Titanic sank.
vs.
Unanimously corroborated testimony about a simple placement of the plane in relation to everyday physical references from people engaged in the mundane activities of life who haven't talked to each other about what they saw (which rules out witness bias).

Were you an english major, Pomeroo? No mere mortal could produce an analagy of such startling accuracy. :rolleyes:

[TC329]

Really?

Russell Pickering told the CIT that “I have witnesses with footage of the area behind the Pentagon at the moment of impact that I have talked to in great detail. They had three cameras running. They SWEAR that nothing flew over the building. So who is right? The video shows that if your imaginary flyover happened the plane would have had to go significantly south. There were multiple people there watching. NOTHING flew over according to them.”


where's the government operative russell pickering and his videos at today 16.5?

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

last i recall after convincing dylan avery that a plane hit the pentagon for loose change final cut and delivering a major setback to this movement russell "retired" saying he had "accomplished all of his goals in regards to 9/11 research" and now sells real estate.

aldo & craig haven't "retired" and russell pickering doesn't know anyone who has videos of anything.

fascinating that a crew had 3 camera's set up filming the pentagon and yet not one of them noticed a massive loud airplane approaching and turned their camera's toward it but all of them left it on the area that would prove a plane didn't fly over.

if such video's existed they could have been filmed on sept 11 2005 for all you know.

pickering is a fraud and was exposed as such and ran away with his tail between his legs. expect john farmer and adam larson to follow his lead very shortly and that arabesque bozo as well.

[TC329]

Yoo-hoo! Did the survivors who thought the Titanic went straight down prove that the ship didn't sink? Explain your answer.


relationship to the bush administrations attack on the pentagon and the sinking of the titanic are.............?

[pomeroo]

there are many variables....

for example had there been a pilot of hani hanjour's true ability it could crash way before the target or way after the target.

taking a 757 and slamming it into the pentagon is a lot harder than some armchair researchers would leave you to believe.

the target was specific. hani can't fly this into donald rumsfelds lap for example he must hit the exact target with military precision.

so there are many many variants for what could actually go wrong which is why the original drills regarding such an attack were deemed "too unrealisitic".

the day before the attacks rumsfeld announced trillions of dollars was missing. the day after he did so the people tracing that info were dead and all the records in regards to all of these taxpayer dollars were destroyed by hani hanjour and company.

you always look to see who benefits in any investigation. time has showed us who has benefitted.

go read pnac's rebuilding america.

look where we are.


Yes, the Democratic Party has benefited enormously from the public perception that Bush has handled the War on Terror poorly. Can we conclude that Bush merely pretends to be a Republican?

Getting back to that question about the Titanic survivors--oh, you never went there in the first place. I wonder why not. So, tell us: did the people who thought the ship went down in one piece prove that it didn't sink at all. Explain your answer.

How can you advise reading the PNAC document when you know nothing about it?

Now, you are amazingly dumb, but absolutely no one is dumb enough to swallow Fetzer's zany lie about the "missing" $2.3 trillion. It ain't missing; nobody thinks it is. Game over.

[John Blonn]

there are many variables....

for example had there been a pilot of hani hanjour's true ability it could crash way before the target or way after the target.

? What does this have to do with anything? Why bring Hani Hanjour into this? The plane had to have been flown by a government agent, not Hani. Who knows what happened to Hani in your world. I really don't get what you mean by this.

taking a 757 and slamming it into the pentagon is a lot harder than some armchair researchers would leave you to believe.

And flying over the Pentagon at last second at high speeds is any easier? Why do you think this? Evidence? Proof?

the target was specific. hani can't fly this into donald rumsfelds lap for example he must hit the exact target with military precision.

Hani's not flying the aircraft. And they're not flying into the Pentagon anyway, they're flying over it. All these objections apply to your flyover theory - it requires a pilot to complete very complex maneuvers at a fast speed in short time with NO MISTAKES.

so there are many many variants for what could actually go wrong which is why the original drills regarding such an attack were deemed "too unrealisitic".

Red herring.

the day before the attacks rumsfeld announced trillions of dollars was missing. the day after he did so the people tracing that info were dead and all the records in regards to all of these taxpayer dollars were destroyed by hani hanjour and company.

Red herring.

you always look to see who benefits in any investigation. time has showed us who has benefitted.

Red herring.

go read pnac's rebuilding america.

look where we are.

Red herring.

[pomeroo]

relationship to the bush administrations attack on the pentagon and the sinking of the titanic are.............?


Sorry, your clumsy attempt at evasion is unacceptable.

We'll try it again. Many survivors of the Titanic disaster thought that the ship went down in one piece. They were watching from nearby lifeboats and yet they were wrong. How is this possible? Did they prove that the ship didn't sink?

(I love watching you mindless liars squirm!)

[TC329]

I can't?? How about Russell Pickering? He called you guys frauds to your faces.

agent russell pickering "retired" from 9/11 truth it was so important to him.
so whose the "fraud" again?

How about Caustic Logic (a/k/a Adam Larson) He posts here (although, he seems to mock you guys more than hate you)

adam larson is not a truther.

How about Dylan Avery? He booted your asses off the old LC board.

well dylan avery has never had a problem with me and i have never been booted off any forum his or anyone elses......

what he did before russell pickering "retired" i can't explain maybe you should ask him if you're concerned. last i seen though he doesn't seem to have any problems with cit presenting their evidence in his house.

do you see dew or npt threads over there? yeah, me neither......

How about the guy who runs the "letsroll forums"? He really hates you, and your whiny pal Aldo almost quit the new LC board when JFK would not kick him off (what a pansy!)?

i personally don't care what phil thinks of anyone. i spoke to him once. i learned from him through his source christopher bollyn that shanksville was a gothic little city and everyone was related and involved in some sort of satanic cult. he then proceeded to get me to accept jesus christ into my life after asking me to call him in alaska because he couldn't afford to call pa despite being a television station engineer.

How about "Arabesque" He called you disinfo. Oh wait that is not a "real name," right? Tell you what, you tell us your buddy Killtown's name, and I'll tell you Arabesque's, deal?

arabesque doesn't promote truth and is not a truther.

How about the new LC board? Oh, wait, I'll give you that, Dom. They just ignore you.

no one ignores me or anyone in cit.

So you are the losers of the dumb class. Good job, Dom.

yep keep repeating it enough and maybe just maybe somebody will believe you.....

yeah what a strange night. everyone here is accusing other people of being guilty of what they themselves really are.....

thats why there are websites and bloggers dedicated to attacking cit. and so many threads here devoted to them and their research.......

[TC329]

No, you were exposed as a liar.





The moronic frauds of the CIT are not worth my time. When any of the liars are willing to interview a "witness" in the presence of a rationalist, let us know.


lmao!!!!

again you are proven to be a joke.

and you wonder why no one takes you serious except the lemmings......

[TC329]

? What does this have to do with anything? Why bring Hani Hanjour into this? The plane had to have been flown by a government agent, not Hani. Who knows what happened to Hani in your world. I really don't get what you mean by this.



And flying over the Pentagon at last second at high speeds is any easier? Why do you think this? Evidence? Proof?



Hani's not flying the aircraft. And they're not flying into the Pentagon anyway, they're flying over it. All these objections apply to your flyover theory - it requires a pilot to complete very complex maneuvers at a fast speed in short time with NO MISTAKES.



Red herring.



Red herring.



Red herring.



Red herring.


1) it is easier to not crash into a building than to crash into it.

2) dont ask questions if you have no interest in discussing the answers.

i thought you were actually sincere. you're just slightly more polite than the rest of the lot.

[GregHouseMD]

I'm new here and I've got just a single question at this point for the CIT poeople.

If your evidence is as rock solid as you say, if it is so damning, why aren't you breaking down the doors at a major network with this solid piece of investigative work. Proof that what the American people have been told for years is all a lie.

WHY ARE YOU SELLING IT INSTEAD?

I'm sure this question has been asked before, I apologize if it's uh...redundant.

[pomeroo]

Testimony from people literally dieing in sub-zero ocean water, trying to muster the last ounce of energy to clasp on to a floating plank so as to avoid drowning, differ with regard to how the Titanic sank.
vs.
Unanimously corroborated testimony about a simple placement of the plane in relation to everyday physical references from people engaged in the mundane activities of life who haven't talked to each other about what they saw (which rules out witness bias).

Were you an english major, Pomeroo? No mere mortal could produce an analagy of such startling accuracy. :rolleyes:


You hopeless dunce! Hundreds of survivors were clustered in lifeboats--not floating on planks in the North Atlantic! Here comes a really profound concept: if they were clinging to planks in the freezing waters (hint: iceberg), they would not have been survivors.

Yes, the analogy is perfect. I was an English/Philosophy major.

We have hundreds of people who saw the plane hit the Pentagon. The number that witnessed a flyover is zero. Most people describe a flight path consistent with the enormous amount of physical evidence. A tiny handful describe--or were browbeaten into describing by the unscrupulous cretins of the CIT--a different flight path (We will soon find out what they really describe). Assuming that the CIT liars are, uncharacteristically, not lying, why should the minority outweigh the majority?

Tell us again: Did the survivors who thought the Titanic went straight down prove that it didn't sink?

[John Blonn]

1) it is easier to not crash into a building than to crash into it.

And I should believe this why? This is not a self evident point. My main objection with this is that it's categorical.

2) dont ask questions if you have no interest in discussing the answers.

? I am discussing the answers. You're just not liking my responses.

i thought you were actually sincere. you're just slightly more polite than the rest of the lot.

I am quite sincere. Unless by sincere you mean "agrees with me."

[pomeroo]

lmao!!!!

again you are proven to be a joke.

and you wonder why no one takes you serious except the lemmings......


Some of us have noticed that you have been beaten to a pulp by awkward questions that you cannot hope to answer.

[Björn Toulouse]

You know what, I'm LOLing too hard about the first claim to wait.

Here's the deadly problem with your first attempt.

You claim that the conspirators wanted 'precise' damage. You didn't define what you meant by this, but I'm going to assume you meant that they wanted the South side path to be as 'realistic' as possible, i.e. wanted the physical evidence to replicate as close as possible what would happen if the plane had 'really' flew across the South path.

So, therefore, you allege, they flew the plane to the North in order to prevent...

Wait.

Hold on.

You're trying to make me buy this: The conspirators flew the plane away from the South side path because they didn't want it to cause damage across the South side path...but wouldn't this be the MOST PRECISE WAY of causing damage across the South?

Again, you wrote: "It's possible that the damage required needed to be precise (which would account for the physical damage) and the plane was merely flown NOC precisely because they wanted to avoid hitting light poles." What you're saying here is that the conspirators didn't want to fly the plane on the South side on the off chance that it hit something on the South side, revealing that the plane was...flying on the South side? That it's easier to fly the plane on the North and create fake damage on the South rather than actually just flying the plane to the south and letting the plane make the damage?


Instead of flying the plane to the south and ACTUALLY knocking down the poles, the conspirators actually decided to fly it on the North path so as to not knock down light poles, and then go ahead and prefab light poles and make them look like the plane flew to the South? What?

Could you please explain in more depth what you meant by your statement?



C'mon, TC329 - how can you get past this without admitting insanity or outright lying? And I ask you again - you know that there are lightpoles on the ground - you cannot deny this - if a plane did not knock them down, then at what point were they deliberately placed there and how come nobody in that vicinity saw anyone deliberately placing them there, especially in that guy's windshield?

[TheLoneBedouin]

For the timing, the angle, and all to work out, for the witnesses to see the plane to the North, 'hit' the Pentagon, but actually get away, the conspirators would have had to PLAN to fly the plane to the North.
No, not necessarily. The timing could depend on detection of the plane over the Pentagon, which is independent of flight path.
If the main purpose of the explosion is to distract, aircraft angle would be irrelevant. Furthermore, so long as the plane is behind the fireball, it would have been hidden, regardless of heading.
You're trying to make me buy this: The conspirators flew the plane away from the South side path because they didn't want it to cause damage across the South side path...but wouldn't this be the MOST PRECISE WAY of causing damage across the South?
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.

[~enigma~]

The north side evidence is not a theory. It is what all the witnesses unanimously report.
You do realize that withholding evidence is a crime right?

[~enigma~]

I hope you're not spending a lot of money on your fantasy stuff. Not a wise investment IMO.
Why would he spend money on a DVD he made with Alpo?

[John Blonn]

No, not necessarily. The timing could depend on detection of the plane over the Pentagon, which is independent of flight path.

Evidence? Why should I believe this? Because you say so?

If the main purpose of the explosion is to distract, aircraft angle would be irrelevant.

Evidence? Why should I believe this? Because you say so?

Furthermore, so long as the plane is behind the fireball, it would have been hidden, regardless of heading.

Evidence? Why should I believe this? Because you say so?

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.

Still haven't gotten to the heart of the question. Why not avoid the South altogether, fly it to the North, and be done with it? Why fake south side damage?

And anyway, don't leave anything to chance? Your conspirators leave an INCREDIBLE amount to chance.

What are the chances that people on nearby roads and in nearby buildings see the flyover from the other side, as clear as day? VERY HIGH

What are the chances someone notices people planting physical evidence on the South side path? VERY HIGH

What are the chances that one or two or three of the hundreds involved in the conspiracy whistleblow? VERY HIGH

What are the chances many things could go wrong, blowing their cover, and revealing the conspiracy to the world? VERY HIGH

&c &c &c

[TC329]

I'm new here and I've got just a single question at this point for the CIT poeople.

If your evidence is as rock solid as you say, if it is so damning, why aren't you breaking down the doors at a major network with this solid piece of investigative work. Proof that what the American people have been told for years is all a lie.

WHY ARE YOU SELLING IT INSTEAD?

I'm sure this question has been asked before, I apologize if it's uh...redundant.

its freely available.
as for "selling" it, i can assure you no one is making millions of dollars or hundreds of thousands of dollars.
hotel rooms, accomodations, airline tickets, etc all drains your bank account.

as for the major media......

lets look at how CNN [i.e. not the administration's cheerleaders at faux news] treats impeachable allegations against this administration (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns3d6zSGPws) as example a.

[TC329]

You do realize that withholding evidence is a crime right?


so where's those arlington 911 tapes at?

[~enigma~]

CIT = Citizen's Investigative Team. Kinda like a retarded Scooby-Do and gang.

PFT = Pilots For Truth. Kinda like a retarded CIT.
Clueless Investigoogle Team
Pretty Foolish Team

[TC329]

C'mon, TC329 And I ask you again - you know that there are lightpoles on the ground - you cannot deny this - if a plane did not knock them down, then at what point were they deliberately placed there and how come nobody in that vicinity saw anyone deliberately placing them there, especially in that guy's windshield?

i have already addressed this in this thread. please read through as i don't enjoy repeating myself.

[Björn Toulouse]

so where's those arlington 911 tapes at?


Hey, you answer that post? Answer a few above it , OK?

[Jonnyclueless]

there are many variables....

for example had there been a pilot of hani hanjour's true ability it could crash way before the target or way after the target.

taking a 757 and slamming it into the pentagon is a lot harder than some armchair researchers would leave you to believe.

the target was specific. hani can't fly this into donald rumsfelds lap for example he must hit the exact target with military precision.

so there are many many variants for what could actually go wrong which is why the original drills regarding such an attack were deemed "too unrealisitic".

the day before the attacks rumsfeld announced trillions of dollars was missing. the day after he did so the people tracing that info were dead and all the records in regards to all of these taxpayer dollars were destroyed by hani hanjour and company.

you always look to see who benefits in any investigation. time has showed us who has benefitted.

go read pnac's rebuilding america.

look where we are.

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?

[Jonnyclueless]

Oh and BTW, anyone who says that Rumsfeld announced that trillions of dollars went missing IS A FLAT OUT LIAR. you cannot make that statement without lying. It's not in any way shape or form true, nor is it even possible. It's also been discussed to death over and over by you same people. Which means that you aren't simply misreporting, but you are knowingly LYING through your teeth.

So why should anyone believe some kids who are openly LYING? And if you are so concerned with truth, then why do you feel the need to LIE Dom?

[Reheat]

Pardon me, but TLB and TC329 I know your busy, but how do your new witnesses in this earthquake rending new set of witnesses get around this (http://www.911myths.com/index.php/NoC) little gem?

How did the aircraft end up on the far North side of the Navy Annex? You call that corroborated in view of the other witnesses?

The path described by these witnesses is even more impossible than those described by the CITGO group. Then we add the "flyover witness" to the gaggle we have a triple impossible feat.

Yea, it's corroborated all right. A corroborated bunch of crap by a gaggle of wankers!

[Reheat]

so where's those arlington 911 tapes at?

One thing is for sure, they are not behind that preposition. What kind of education do you have, Dom? Did you manage to finish 8th grade?

[Jonnyclueless]

Sometimes corroboration requires a little lying on the part of the researchers.

[TC329]

Pardon me, but TLB and TC329 I know your busy, but how do your new witnesses in this earthquake rending new set of witnesses get around this (http://www.911myths.com/index.php/NoC) little gem?

How did the aircraft end up on the far North side of the Navy Annex? You call that corraborated in view of the other witnesses?

The path described by these witnesses is even more impossible than those described by the CITGO group. Then we add the "flyover witness" to the gaggle we have a triple impossible feat.

Yea, it's corraborated all right. A corraborated bunch of crap by a gaggle of wankers!


yawn....

call the eyewitnesses a "gaggle of wankers" and post some mathematical equations in which you can choose and pick all your variants to receive the desired outcome....

youre fellow brethern aren't even mentioning your "work" anymore as it has been rendered moot and pointless.

need a tissue mr. anonymous armchair researcher?

not one of the eyewitnesses you refer to as a "gaggle of wankers" hides their identity and yet you do. i don't find that coincidental at all.

[WildCat]

The slower speed is also corroborated by Morin, who estimates that it took "13 to 18 seconds" to pass from the Navy Annex to impact.
Now you're claiming the "north of citgo" plane was travelling 130 mph!?

[~enigma~]

I prefer the west side of the CITGO theory myself.

Oh, and ask me about the flyunder! Flyunder makes more sense because it explains why no one saw a plane fly away.
Yes but northside story has better dancing and that girl Maria...she is HOT :)

[TC329]

where's the government operative russell pickering and his videos at today 16.5?

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

last i recall after convincing dylan avery that a plane hit the pentagon for loose change final cut and delivering a major setback to this movement russell "retired" saying he had "accomplished all of his goals in regards to 9/11 research" and now sells real estate.

aldo & craig haven't "retired" and russell pickering doesn't know anyone who has videos of anything.

fascinating that a crew had 3 camera's set up filming the pentagon and yet not one of them noticed a massive loud airplane approaching and turned their camera's toward it but all of them left it on the area that would prove a plane didn't fly over.

if such video's existed they could have been filmed on sept 11 2005 for all you know.

pickering is a fraud and was exposed as such and ran away with his tail between his legs. expect john farmer and adam larson to follow his lead very shortly and that arabesque bozo as well.

:)

[WildCat]

Not at all.
You posted a pick of a tree which appeared to have been flattened horizontally at the top- since the official story doesn't have the plane leveling out at that altitude your post does not support the official story.
Sure it supports the universally accepted flight path, no one doubts the plane hit tho poles and the tree except irrational dvd salesmen.

(BTW the tree's shape appears normal to me, but this is what you posted).
It's not. It was pruned by the starboard engine of a 757.

[realitybites]

Furthermore, so long as the plane is behind the fireball, it would have been hidden, regardless of heading.

This would be true only in a two-dimensional world where people only existed on one side of the fireball.

Unfortunately for CIT, the real world is 3D. It is all around us.

..... And a lot of people live on the eastern bank of the Potomac.

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/6448/dcjh4.jpg

[TheLoneBedouin]

You hopeless dunce! Hundreds of survivors were clustered in lifeboats--not floating on planks in the North Atlantic!
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!
Here comes a really profound concept: if they were clinging to planks in the freezing waters (hint: iceberg), they would not have been survivors.
Unless they were saved by the people in the lifeboats.
Yes, the analogy is perfect. I was an English/Philosophy major.
Then you need to retake "Analogy 101" since your analogy is idiotic.
We have hundreds of people who saw the plane hit the Pentagon.
Wrong.
The number that witnessed a flyover is zero.
Wrong- the number is unknown but no less than one.
Most people describe a flight path consistent with the enormous amount of physical evidence.
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).
A tiny handful describe--or were browbeaten into describing by the unscrupulous cretins of the CIT--a different flight path (We will soon find out what they really describe).
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.

[nicepants]

Of the 100+ eyewitnesses who said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon, how many have you guys (cit) interviewed? A sizable portion. [snip]

"A Sizeable portion" is not a number. (Note the wording of the question..."how many".)

Express your answer in the form of a number, or explain why you are afraid to do so.

[Mangoose]

you haven't explained what knocked those light poles down because not a single eyewitness saw it happen.

"I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant." -- Wanda Ramey

"I knew it [the plane] was going to strike the building because it was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down." -- Mark Bright

"It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts." -- Afework Hagos

"I am sorry to rain on your parade, but I saw the plane hit the building. It did not hit the ground first... It hit dead center on the side... 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 its way." -- Steve Riskus

"The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car." -- Stephen McGraw

"First, the plane knocked down a number of street lamp poles, then headed directly for the Pentagon and crashed on the lawn near the west side of the Pentagon." -- D. S. Khavkin

"I was right underneath the plane. I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles. It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion." -- Kirk Milburn

"Its downward angle was too sharp, its elevation of maybe 50 feet, too low. Street lights toppled as the plane barely cleared the Interstate 395 overpass. The thought that I was about to die was immediate and certain. This plane was going to hit me along with all the other commuters trapped on Washington Boulevard." -- Mary Ann Owens

[Reheat]

call the eyewitnesses a "gaggle of wankers" and post some mathematical equations in which you can choose and pick all your variants to receive the desired outcome....

I expect you to intentionally misinterpret my reference. The "gaggle of wankers" are CIT and pffft, d*** ass.

youre fellow brethern aren't even mentioning your "work" anymore as it has been rendered moot and pointless.

Many of them are not comfortable debating those issues, just as you are (not).

need a tissue mr. anonymous armchair researcher?

Hehehe, I didn't need to do much except watch your movies and then use my knowledge and experience to defeat your delusion. Not much effort at all and I didn't do it from an armchair either. I did it while in my hot tub.

[realitybites]

"I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant." -- Wanda Ramey

"I knew it [the plane] was going to strike the building because it was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down." -- Mark Bright

"It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts." -- Afework Hagos

"I am sorry to rain on your parade, but I saw the plane hit the building. It did not hit the
ground first... It hit dead center on the side... 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 its way." -- Steve Riskus

"The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car." -- Stephen McGraw

"First, the plane knocked down a number of street lamp poles, then headed directly for the Pentagon and crashed on the lawn near the west side of the Pentagon." -- D. S. Khavkin

"I was right underneath the plane. I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles. It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion." -- Kirk Milburn

"Its downward angle was too sharp, its elevation of maybe 50 feet, too low. Street lights toppled as the plane barely cleared the Interstate 395 overpass. The thought that I was about to die was immediate and certain. This plane was going to hit me along with all the other commuters trapped on Washington Boulevard." -- Mary Ann Owens
Mangoose, those eyewitness accounts are void because they are not on video. They didn't say these things in front of a camera. So their words cannot be uploaded to YouTube.

Hell... odds are these people aren't even REAL.

[~enigma~]

I will come back to your first explanation in a little bit. Let's start with your second contention, that it was a "mistake."

Before I go on to this, I have a question about the flyover theory. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the bombs set up in the Pentagon were set to explode in just such a way (timing, angle, etc.) to hide the plane from view as it flew over? So in other words the bombs were set to hide a plane flying over the Pentagon from a North of Citgo path, correct?
And the explosion would NOT have been physically able to mask the plane unless it flew through the fireball and the problem there is it isn't what ANYBODY saw.

[LashL]

These people do not leave anything to chance.


Who are "these people" of whom you speak? Please be specific.

[realitybites]

And the explosion would NOT have been physically able to mask the plane unless it flew through the fireball and the problem there is it isn't what ANYBODY saw.

Not only would it have to enter the fireball to be hidden, it would've had to have slammed on its air-breaks so as not to pop out the other side.

I've never understood how CIT can be so nonchalant in dismissing the folks who live across the river not having reported seeing any low flying plane screaming away from the smoking Pentagon.

[GregHouseMD]

its freely available.
as for "selling" it, i can assure you no one is making millions of dollars or hundreds of thousands of dollars.
hotel rooms, accomodations, airline tickets, etc all drains your bank account.

as for the major media......

lets look at how CNN impeachable allegations against this administration as example a.

(I had to take the link out so I could post my reply.)


Nice excuses but you are still selling what you claim to be "proof" of serious crimes. I cannot think of a single good reason that would justify selling evidence of crimes that resulted in the murder of Americans.

If you truly are doing this to get the truth out, to bring the guilty to justice, have the same sense of honor and dedication as the founding fathers did.

Risk your life, your fortune, your family, the future of your children on your beliefs; don't argue that you are just "making expenses".

Considering the quality of the "interviews" and the so called investigation, I'm sure no one is making much money from the videos.

True investigators interview people in controlled settings, one on one, not while they are distracted by work and standing outside with a co worker. I did it for enough years to recognize a hack job when I see it.

Considering the delusional nature of your beliefs, I'm not surprised you can justify to yourself that making money from "The Truth" is acceptable.

[~enigma~]

so where's those arlington 911 tapes at?
What does that have to do with CIT withholding evidence (if it is evidence)?

[beachnut]

there are many variables.... One is too many for you to understand. You take witness statements and mangle them with ease. If I need a fictional account, I just let you talk about an event. Look how bad you have mangled 77 flight path. So bad you can't even agree on a single path, but have many impossible paths.


for example had there been a pilot of hani hanjour's true ability it could crash way before the target or way after the target.
Wrong, the only pilots in the world who can't hit the Pentagon are from p4t, they tried to hit building in the safety of a simulator and failed! Terrorist pilots - 3, p4t pilots -ZERO. Hani had this, do you?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/haniFAA.jpg

OMG, he is a commercial pilot! Ouch! Darn! Let me explain reality. Hani did not need to land a Cessna, he needed to hit a building! A building is easier to hit than landing, I know, I have landed thousand of times! I have let non pilots fly a 4 engine jet in the 300,000 pound class, the non-pilots fly for the first time good enough to hit a building, gee, good enough to land and crash on the runway! I put kids in a simulator, they were about to hit what Balsamo and his pilots can't. So the only pilots who fit your lies are in p4t. So sorry. I got more, but it will not take.


taking a 757 and slamming it into the pentagon is a lot harder than some armchair researchers would leave you to believe.
WRONG, you have not paid attention to reality. Flying a 757 and hitting the largest office building there is, is easy. Even Hani can do it! Looks like hani almost screwed up. Gee, the terrorist on 93 even hit a big STATE! Bet p4t would have a problem hitting a target as big as PA? It is easy to fly, you are proven wrong! This is extremely funny, you make up lies proven wrong over 6 years ago.

the target was specific. hani can't fly this into donald rumsfelds lap for example he must hit the exact target with military precision.
Are you okay?
so there are many many variants for what could actually go wrong which is why the original drills regarding such an attack were deemed "too unrealisitic". What? Oh, many many. Ah, yes… I see now…

the day before the attacks rumsfeld announced trillions of dollars was missing. the day after he did so the people tracing that info were dead and all the records in regards to all of these taxpayer dollars were destroyed by hani hanjour and company.
Liar, what a big one. This tops it all!

you always look to see who benefits in any investigation. time has showed us who has benefitted. No one? Not one person has benefited! OOPS No one did it. Unless you think UBL running and hiding is a benefit for the one who did it? Gee, the 19 terrorist, oh joy we are dead? NUTS, seems the terrorist are smarter than TC on 9/11 and CIT.
go read pnac's rebuilding america. Oh, gee, you have too many nut case ideas to contain in one brain, you are leaking junk ideas in this post. America?
look where we are. We are in CA! And u r not? ... you are one paranoid biased political maker upper of lies?
Ask not to look where we are, ask where are you! u b in fantasy land of CIT, p4t, dumb ideas on 9/11ville.

[WildCat]

It takes a special kind of paranoia to think that anyone who doesn't buy the ridiculous CIT flyover nonsense is a government agent.

[T.A.M.]

Testimony from people literally dieing in sub-zero ocean water, trying to muster the last ounce of energy to clasp on to a floating plank so as to avoid drowning, differ with regard to how the Titanic sank.
vs.
Unanimously corroborated testimony about a simple placement of the plane in relation to everyday physical references from people engaged in the mundane activities of life who haven't talked to each other about what they saw (which rules out witness bias).

Were you an english major, Pomeroo? No mere mortal could produce an analagy of such startling accuracy. :rolleyes:

Out of over 100 witnesses, you have testimony about an event that took 2-4 seconds, tops, from 13 people, whom upon being interviewed MANY YEARS LATER, have misremembered small details about where in the sky they think they saw the plane. You have taken these few mistakes, and put them together, claiming they are corroborating some new flight plan for AA77.

This versus all of the other witness testimony, the Physical evidence, etc...

Do you really think anyone in the legal/justice system will EVER take you seriously? really?

TAM:)

[TheLoneBedouin]

Originally Posted by TheLoneBedouin View Post
No, not necessarily. The timing could depend on detection of the plane over the Pentagon, which is independent of flight path.
Evidence? Why should I believe this? Because you say so?

Originally Posted by TheLoneBedouin View Post
If the main purpose of the explosion is to distract, aircraft angle would be irrelevant.
Evidence? Why should I believe this? Because you say so?

Originally Posted by TheLoneBedouin View Post
Furthermore, so long as the plane is behind the fireball, it would have been hidden, regardless of heading.
Evidence? Why should I believe this? Because you say so?
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.

Still haven't gotten to the heart of the question. Why not avoid the South altogether, fly it to the North, and be done with it? Why fake south side damage?
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).
And anyway, don't leave anything to chance? Your conspirators leave an INCREDIBLE amount to chance.

What are the chances that people on nearby roads and in nearby buildings see the flyover from the other side, as clear as day? VERY HIGH
Indeed- thus the sequestering of the 911 calls and the introduction of the second plane story.
What are the chances someone notices people planting physical evidence on the South side path? VERY HIGH
No that section of road was controlled immediately after the explosion by the FBI.
What are the chances that one or two or three of the hundreds involved in the conspiracy whistleblow? VERY HIGH
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.
What are the chances many things could go wrong, blowing their cover, and revealing the conspiracy to the world? VERY HIGH
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 (www.ponerology.com).

[T.A.M.]

It takes a special kind of paranoia to think that anyone who doesn't buy the ridiculous CIT flyover nonsense is a government agent.

I guess that means that the vast majority of the truth movement are really government agents, including Dylan Avery, Jon Gold, and many others.

lol.

TAM:)

[Björn Toulouse]

i have already addressed this in this thread. please read through as i don't enjoy repeating myself.



You think people only drive down that roadway during rush hour in the morning? If the poles were dismantled in the night, someone driving by would still have seen the process.

[johnny karate]

Do you really think anyone in the legal/justice system will EVER take you seriously? really?

Of course they don't. These people have no intention of doing anything with their "evidence" other than making a little money and creating a false sense of self-importance.

Is it any coincidence that all of these supporters of a flyover theory are coming out of the woodwork right around the time they have a new DVD to hawk?

At this point, we're the only ones paying attention to them. How sad that the only venue they have left to pimp their wares is a forum full of people who think they're delusional frauds.

[Hellbound]

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?

[John Blonn]

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).

Please explain this further. Destroy targets at a precise angle? What? A bomb will do damage necessary at any angle required.

Add verisimilitude? Interaction with the Pentagon isn't enough?

None of this makes any sense.

[GregHouseMD]

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?

IMO you have been very clear but I would like to add something else that occured to me.

Light poles, on a road, at night, next to the PENTAGON!

[Hellbound]

Good point, Greg. I was waiting to bring up that not only is it at night, along a road, and light poles; it's also next to a building that is occupied 24-hours a day and that has manned guards in and around it at all times.

Not to mention that Citgo. Anyone checked to see if it was open 24 hours?

[TheLoneBedouin]

Please explain this further. Destroy targets at a precise angle? What? A bomb will do damage necessary at any angle required.
Suppose you had two necessary targets and a limited width of damage (roughly equivalent to the wingspan of a 757)- there would be a specific angle required to hit both targets.
Add verisimilitude? Interaction with the Pentagon isn't enough?
Apparently not, since no one knew a plane hit the building until they were told that's what happened.

[TC329]

"A Sizeable portion" is not a number. (Note the wording of the question..."how many".)

Express your answer in the form of a number, or explain why you are afraid to do so.


i gave you the link jason.

why are you being so intentionally dishonest?

i answered your question the first time you asked it in this thread.

this is how you conmen work. you ask a question. someone answers it. you ignore it. and then you ask another person the same question hoping they didn't see the first ones answer.

wow. you're a work of art.

[beachnut]

NoC flight path impossible, researcher edition free at JREF! So far TC can not present a single flight path possible for NoC.

CIT conmen found to make up lies about 9/11.
CIT own witnesses see 77 hit the pentagon. TC lies about people not seeing 77 hit lamppost and fails to comment name by name to explain. Why?

Witnesses used by CIT conmen saw 77 impact the Pentagon! Conmen debunked for the nth time since 2001.

So what is the path?
Who saw 77 fly over the Pentagon? (oops not one person, is this the giant hole in the CIT non-story?)

Who did see 77 fly over? Any names yet?

Why did Roosevelt Roberts see the C-130 at 9:11 or 9:12? What does this mean with his newest over 6 year old testimony? Do any of the 13 original CIT witnesses know they are used to sell BIG lies on DVD?

I have a witness who confirms seeing an aircraft like Roosevelt just after impact! Confirmation! You lost, the witness knows it is a C-130 and has to stop people from running off the expressway cause he knows it is military. Roosevelt did see an aircraft, he tells us in 2001, and it is confirmed to be a C-130 by witnesses, and RADES, the radar data showing only 77 and the C-130 near the Pentagon at the time of impact!

End of NoC

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I just feel that this really, really needs to be addressed...

Now you're claiming the "north of citgo" plane was travelling 130 mph!?


What say you, TheLoneBedouin? TC329?

[Minadin]

I wonder how many of these lucky 13 witnesses witnessed the plane hitting the Pentagon?

Indeed.

Not to mention, it's easy to be mistaken about some aspect of a traumatic event you've witnessed. That's why real investigators rely on witness testimony as a supplement to physical evidence only, unless there's none available.

But, furthermore, the why question as to how these witnesses might be mistaken or mis-remembering has already been explained on these forums. If you're under the canopy of the Citgo at 9-ish AM on Sept, 11, you're likely to hear the plane, then see the shadow on the ground as it passed, before witnessing the crash / fireball. Now, if your initial memory is the noise and the shadow made you think this thing was directly overhead, at 9AM on a September morning, where would the shadow be in relation to the aircraft / gas station?

Finally, as to CIT being the "real" skeptics, I must take a moment to laugh out loud. They've cherry picked, twisted and bent every piece of witness testimony that could have even remotely supported their 'theory' in any way, completely throwing out the ones that can't, they have no physical evidence at all, and they have ignored the resounding absense of any witnesses to what must occur to bear out their theory - namely the fly-over. Short of the 9-11 perps using a Star-Trek style cloaking device, (one that hides the sound, too, maybe they used the same on the Twin Towers to produce the Hush-a-boom effect?) these witnesses must exist.

[Corsair 115]

Government's plan: Fly the plane North of the Citgo. Flyover coordinated with explosion to hide the plane.

But then...fake physical damage along a DIFFERENT flight path? Why? Why ever do this? This makes NO SENSE whatsoever. Better yet, why stage a flyover at all? Why not just actually crash a jet into the Pentagon? It's much easier and simpler than engaging in all this complicated flying over and setting off timed explosives and staging fallen lightpoles and arranging hundreds of fake eyewitnesses stuff.

But perhaps the nefarious folks behind this supposed conspiracy are huge fans of Rube Goldberg and just can't use a simple, direct plan when a fantastically overcomplicated plan will do...

[jhunter1163]

On May 18, 1980, I was visiting some friends of mine in southwestern Washington State when Mt. St. Helens erupted. At the time of the eruption, I was walking down a Forest Service road. I saw the entire northwest side of the mountain just kind of slide off, followed by an enormous explosion.

Now, as it turned out, it was the northeast side of the mountain that collapsed. I would have sworn in court that it was the northwest side. I spent many, many hours of my youth on those Forest Service roads, and I knew exactly where I was in relation to the mountain. Still and all, I was simply... wait for it... mistaken.

What can we conclude from this little story? Eyewitnesses, even to dramatic events, are not infallible and should not be treated as such.

[LashL]

On May 18, 1980, I was visiting some friends of mine in southwestern Washington State when Mt. St. Helens erupted. At the time of the eruption, I was walking down a Forest Service road. I saw the entire northwest side of the mountain just kind of slide off, followed by an enormous explosion.

Now, as it turned out, it was the northeast side of the mountain that collapsed. I would have sworn in court that it was the northwest side. I spent many, many hours of my youth on those Forest Service roads, and I knew exactly where I was in relation to the mountain. Still and all, I was simply... wait for it... mistaken.

What can we conclude from this little story? Eyewitnesses, even to dramatic events, are not infallible and should not be treated as such.

In Twooferville, that's impossible. You could not possibly have been mistaken.

Conclusion: The government planted explosives on the northwest side in order to avoid making mistakes on the northeast side where the "official story" takes place, and in order to deliberately cast doubt upon your observations in the event that you might mention them some time in the future.

Ergo, Mt. St. Helens was an inside job!





In the real world, however, people make mistakes and witnesses to dramatic and traumatic events get things wrong - even to the point of diametric opposition to reality - all the time.

[Hokulele]

Not only would it have to enter the fireball to be hidden, it would've had to have slammed on its air-breaks so as not to pop out the other side.

I've never understood how CIT can be so nonchalant in dismissing the folks who live across the river not having reported seeing any low flying plane screaming away from the smoking Pentagon.


Especially since their attention would most likely be drawn in that direction.

[gumboot]

Only insane people believe in a Pentagon fly over. It's really not worth discussing.

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.

[Arus808]

why must this topic be brought up over and over and over again? why must we repeat what was stated 3 years ago? why?


tc, witnesses ARE NOT RELIABLE.

Please have CIT present PHYSICAL evidence that support their claims

7 years, and no physical evidence

sorry you lose.

[TC329]

Out of over 100 witnesses,
TAM:)

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

[TC329]

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)

[funk de fino]

Post # 169 please

And you are correct Rummy does not announce trillions of dollars are missing, you got one claim right. Pat on the back.

[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

[Jonnyclueless]

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)

So you say you aren't lying right?

OK, please provide the quote from Rumsfeld where he says that trillions of dollars (we're not concerned with the exact amount just him saying money is missing) are missing. Lay it on us. If you don't then I will be forced to explain why it would be impossible.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

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)

First, trillions of dollars did not go missing. And nowhere did Donald Rumsfeld or anyone else say they did.

Now who is lying?

Second, this is a standard twoofer tactic. You got your ass handed to you over witnesses to the damaged lampposts so now you're desperately trying to change the topic.

We accept your concession of defeat.

[TC329]

So you say you aren't lying right?

OK, please provide the quote from Rumsfeld where he says that trillions of dollars (we're not concerned with the exact amount just him saying money is missing) are missing. Lay it on us. If you don't then I will be forced to explain why it would be impossible.

1:01 - 1:05

according to some estimates we cannot track 2.3 trillion dollars in transactions.

[TC329]

First, trillions of dollars did not go missing. And nowhere did Donald Rumsfeld or anyone else say they did.

Now who is lying?


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


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

[funk de fino]

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

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

Do you keep every receipt for every item your purchase?

Think about it. This is about accounting paper trails not missing money, you have been caught making false claims again.

You wonder why people do not take you seriously when you make schoolboy errors like this?

Ask UBL or Atta's father if he is dead.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

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

So you admit that you lied when you said the money was missing.

Did you deliberately lie about the witnesses who saw AA 77 knocking over lamp posts as well, or did you just fail to double check that claim before you made it?

[TC329]

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

[TC329]

Ask UBL or Atta's father if he is dead.

atta's father says atta called him on 9/12/2001 ........

either way atta is not dead he just isn't living right now.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Stop trying to dodge, TC. Answer the question. You are the one who lied, now you owe us an explanation.

Did you deliberately lie about the witnesses who saw AA 77 knocking over lamp posts or did you just fail to double check that claim before you made it?

[TC329]

Did you deliberately lie about the witnesses who saw AA 77 knocking over lamp posts or did you just fail to double check that claim before you made it?

what witnesses are you rambling on about?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

what witnesses are you rambling on about?

These witnesses that Mangoose kindly provided PLUS Father McGraw.

"I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant." -- Wanda Ramey

"I knew it [the plane] was going to strike the building because it was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down." -- Mark Bright

"It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts." -- Afework Hagos

"I am sorry to rain on your parade, but I saw the plane hit the building. It did not hit the ground first... It hit dead center on the side... 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 its way." -- Steve Riskus

"The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car." -- Stephen McGraw

"First, the plane knocked down a number of street lamp poles, then headed directly for the Pentagon and crashed on the lawn near the west side of the Pentagon." -- D. S. Khavkin

"I was right underneath the plane. I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles. It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion." -- Kirk Milburn

"Its downward angle was too sharp, its elevation of maybe 50 feet, too low. Street lights toppled as the plane barely cleared the Interstate 395 overpass. The thought that I was about to die was immediate and certain. This plane was going to hit me along with all the other commuters trapped on Washington Boulevard." -- Mary Ann Owens

You've admitted to lying about the trillions of dollars being missing, were you knowingly lying about these witnesses as well?

And while we're on the topic, you claim the government has been lying about what happened on 9/11. Based on this you've worked yourself up into a pseudo-righteous lather over it.

Now that you've admitted to lying about 9/11 yourself, don't you think you're being a hypocrite? Why is it ok for you to lie about 9/11 but no one else?

[TC329]

These witnesses that Mangoose kindly provided PLUS Father McGraw.



You've admitted to lying about the trillions of dollars being missing, were you knowingly lying about these witnesses as well?

And while we're on the topic, you claim the government has been lying about what happened on 9/11. Based on this you've worked yourself up into a pseudo-righteous lather over it.

Now that you've admitted to lying about 9/11 yourself, don't you think you're being a hypocrite? Why is it ok for you to lie about 9/11 but no one else?


i didn't lie about anything edited for civility.

now lets see the link to these interviews so i can view unlike the way ron and the rest of you don't view interviews.

[GlennB]

Now this is what I call attention to detail ...

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/vdot2.jpg

Did they send out a cherry picker to graze the mast and remove the climbing peg at the same time they dumped the downed light poles?

Of yes, and let's not forget they climbed way to the top, smashed the glass of the camera and sprinkled it on the road.

And, for good measure, they sprinkled leaves and twigs from that damaged tree onto the road.

Then nobody noticed for years, and they didn't bother to point it out .

Ooh ooh ... and they smashed the carp out of the trailer, carved a lump in its roof, shoved it towards the Pentagon and set it ablaze. That's gotta be a daylight job, of course. And ... and ... and ...

Then they go and pilot a different course entirely.

Preposterous of course. But it's all been said before.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

i didn't lie about anything you lying piece of ****.

You: THIS IS NOT A YOUTUBE LINK THAT TAKES YOU TO A NEWS REPORT WHERE RUMMY DOESN'T ANNOUNCE THAT TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS ARE MISSING......

Me: First, trillions of dollars did not go missing... Now who is lying?

You: you're right they're not missing

You lied, then admitted to lying and now you're lying about admitting that you lied. How can you expect us to take anything you say seriously when you are so blatantly dishonest?

Can you even control yourself, or is this a pathological thing for you?

[TC329]

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?

[jhunter1163]

In Twooferville, that's impossible. You could not possibly have been mistaken.

Conclusion: The government planted explosives on the northwest side in order to avoid making mistakes on the northeast side where the "official story" takes place, and in order to deliberately cast doubt upon your observations in the event that you might mention them some time in the future.

Ergo, Mt. St. Helens was an inside job!





In the real world, however, people make mistakes and witnesses to dramatic and traumatic events get things wrong - even to the point of diametric opposition to reality - all the time.


Look for my DVD in stores soon!

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You admitted to lying, TC. You deliberately implied that Rumsfeld stated the money was missing when in fact he said no such thing. I called you on it and accused you of lying whereupon, you conceded that I was right.

Now answer the questions.

You've admitted to lying about the trillions of dollars being missing, were you knowingly lying about these witnesses as well?

Now that you've admitted to lying about 9/11 yourself, don't you think you're being a hypocrite? Why is it ok for you to lie about 9/11 but no one else?

[TC329]

congrats sword of truth....

you now join beachnut and bobert

[Sword_Of_Truth]

congrats sword of truth....

you now join beachnut and bobert

How can I know you aren't lying about this as well? :D

[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

[robeeb]

Of the 100+ eyewitnesses who said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon, how many have you guys (cit) interviewed?


I've mentioned in another thread by TheLoneBedouin of an eyewitness I know personally who was in DC that day, and witnessed flight 77 impact the Pentagon. I guarantee you they have not interviewed this person. They don't even acknowledge my info, or even my presence here on the forum. I don't know if it's because they have me on ignore, or if they don't want to hear of a credible witness that does nothing to further their ridiculous "theories".

[robeeb]

1) it is easier to not crash into a building than to crash into it.


I'm curious about why you think this is true. Are you a pilot? Do you have any flight experience?

[funk de fino]

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

Do you know where your money goes after you give it to the walmart checkout girl?

You know you spent it but you dont know where it goes do you?

If someone asks you where that $20 is you cannot tell them where it went after you gave it to the cashier. Dont know much about accounting do you?

[funk de fino]

Any answer to post # 169 and 215?

Do you just put everyone on ignore when they catch you out?

[Drudgewire]

Do you know where your money goes after you give it to the walmart checkout girl?

You know you spent it but you dont know where it goes do you?


He only loses track of that money if he loses his receipt. Otherwise he can keep tabs on it forever. :p

[bje]

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

It's actually over 1,000 witnesses. This fact you and CIT know well.

You know that, TC3298, and have already stated that you refuse to interview them.

Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis are on record of refusing to interview over 1,000 KEY eyewitnesses.

Why do you persist on lying about the evidence, TC329? Do you think you are fooling anyone?

Tell us, right here on JREF, why you insist on lying about AA77, TC329.

[~enigma~]

I KNOW ITS HARD BUT CAN YOU GUYS PLEASE QUIT RECITING THAT LIE? (http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82)
It isn't a lie...face it, CIT is ganz kaput.

[16.5]

I AM TC I AM USING BIG WORDS

PAY ATTENTION TO ME.

Anyhow, Dom, Pickering got so disgusted with the frauds in the Truth Movement, he gave up. He was there with the CIT and was horrified at their incompetence and fraudulent tactics.

A great example is the cherry picking frauds at the CIT. Tell CIT to release their full unedited tapes of all their interviews. We know Aldo and Lyte flat out admitted that they misrepresented themselves to get the interviews. So Dom, this is just another reason why just about everybody thinks that the CIT is not just a joke, but flat out disinfo. I think they are just dumb.

I hope that does not stretch your "incredoolly"

I hope that Dom will not find CIT "uneffective."

Hee hee!

Anyhow, say hi to your pal Killtown for us, will ya?

[nicepants]

i gave you the link jason.

why are you being so intentionally dishonest?

i answered your question the first time you asked it in this thread.

You must have missed this part:
Express your answer in the form of a number,

According to your list..you've interviewed 17 out of the 104+ eyewitnesses. Do you really think that refusing to interview roughly 84% of the eyewitnesses is responsible?

this is how you conmen work. you ask a question. someone answers it. you ignore it. and then you ask another person the same question hoping they didn't see the first ones answer.

wow. you're a work of art.

Actually, I asked because I wasn't given a number, just another link to your drivel. But according to that list, the number is 17.

17 into 104 is about 16%

So you your entire theory is based on statements from only 1 out of every 6 people! ....and Craig calls that a "sizeable portion".....NOW who is being "intellectually dishonest"

[bobloblaw]

what witnesses are you rambling on about?
How about witness Sgt. Chadwick Brooks, who in 2001 states that he would never forget the image of seeing the plane hitting the light poles?

[TC329]

Do you really think that refusing to interview roughly 84% of the eyewitnesses is responsible?

again you are being purposely dishonest.

cit "refuses" to interview no one.

cit has contacted more witnesses as stated in the list and others as of yet haven't been located.

you're free to try and help find means of contacting the others and verifying their statements and thus for duh-bunking the the 13 NoC eyewitnesses and the flyover witness or you can just continue your little internet tirades and stomp your feet and pound your fists some more and call people names.

your choice.

i already know what you're going to pick though.

[TC329]

How about witness Sgt. Chadwick Brooks, who in 2001 states that he would never forget the image of seeing the plane hitting the light poles?


hi bob.

ever get sean and levi to recant their navy annex/NoC accounts yet?

didn't think so.

dom

[JimBenArm]

So many pages, and still no proof, let alone anything validated.

Such a poor performance. Yet so typical of insane idiots.

Maybe I'll go to that other thread and see if Chill has that banana split ready yet...

[Drudgewire]

So many pages, and still no proof, let alone anything validated.


Yeah at this point I think we can safely add "redundant" to the long list of words twoofers have their own unique definition of.

[bobloblaw]

what witnesses are you rambling on about?
Or how about Sean Boger -

[Redacted {Ranke identifies as Boger}] And so I am looking out at the road, and I see the traffic has liked stop, and I look out the window and I just hear a -- I just see like the nose and the wing of an aircraft just like coming right at us, and he didn't veer. And then you just heard the noise, and then he just smacked into the building, and when it hit the building, I am watching the plane go all the way into the building.
[Redacted {Interviewer}] Oh, my gosh.
[Sean Boger] So once the plane went into the building, it exploded, and once it exploded, I hit the floor and just covered up my head.

We still have not seen the explanation for how CIT's star witness Sean Boger managed to create this moment of fantasy in his head, especially given his prime location at the helipad control tower adjacent to the impact site.

In fact, and correct me if I am wrong here as I have not sat through the second part of the new presentation, but CIT are also yet to produce any evidence establishing Sean Boger and Levi Stephens as actual NoC witnesses despite continuing to use their names to support a list of 13 supposed Noc witnesses.

Why is this?

[bobloblaw]

hi bob.

ever get sean and levi to recant their navy annex/NoC accounts yet?

didn't think so.

dom
On the contrary Dom, as I just mentioned in the post above, we are yet to confirm that Levi Stephens and Sean Boger even made a NoC account, Dom.

Have you been able to confirm for us that Levi Stephens and Sean Boger made NoC accounts, Dom? If so, where is the evidence?

Why did Sgt. Chadwick Brooks make the claim in 2001 that he would never forget the sight of seeing the plane hitting the light poles?

[GregHouseMD]

I was struck by a similarity to a case I worked in the mid eighties.

I had to testify before the Dallas County Grand Jury, I had two VHS tapes that held evidence of the crime. I offered them to the Grand Jury FREE and they accepted them and returned an indictment.

See how that works?

I have to wonder what would have happened if I had explained the tapes would cost them $15 each or both for $25?

Any "Truther" want to expound on that?

(It's my dead horse, I can beat it all I like.)

[bobloblaw]

CIT also lie when they say they found noone supporting the SoC flight path.

Keith Wheelhouse, at CIT's request, drew the AA77 flightpath with the line clearly drawn south of the Citgo gas station.

Regardless of what CIT think of Wheelhouse's testimony, why do they continue to lie by saying that they have no on-the-record SoC witnesses?

[CptColumbo]

So "The north side evidence validated to the point of redundancy" should really read; "The north side evidence validated to the point of redundancy, as long as you ignore all the majority of the eyewitnesses and all the physical evidence."

As I've written before in other threads, if the "evidence" cannot stand up to scrutiny here (at the JREF forum) how does CIT plan to convince a court to listen? Are they hoping the judge and/or jury are as obtuse as they are?

In the end IMO they want to make money off the tragedy and give themselves a sense of self importance, that reality does not recognize.

[nicepants]

again you are being purposely dishonest.

cit "refuses" to interview no one. cit has contacted more witnesses as stated in the list and others as of yet haven't been located.

Poor word-choice on my part, I should have used the word "fail", not "refuse".

Do you think that you can generate an accurate narrative of the events at the Pentagon when you FAIL to interview over 84% of the eyewitnesses?

you're free to try and help find means of contacting the others and verifying their statements and thus for duh-bunking the the 13 NoC eyewitnesses and the flyover

That should have been part of your "investigation". I'm not going to do your legwork for you.

[bobloblaw]

Ugh.

So apparently Sean Boger's account is in the 2nd part of their new presentation, or so I've just read on LCF.

I'm only a few minutes into it and I'm already nauseated as Craig explains how even though one of his star witness is lying he's really telling the truth where it matters.

[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

[jhunter1163]

If I had Youtube skillz, I would make a video showing CIT's witness statements, with a big green "TRUE!" and a bell when they said something CIT claimed to be true, and a big red "LIE!" with a buzzer when they said something CIT disagreed with (i. e. "the plane hit the building").

This would really highlight the cherrypicking. "DING!" "BUZZ!" "DING!" "BUZZ!" "BUZZ!" "DING!"

[robeeb]

I'm curious about why you think this is true. Are you a pilot? Do you have any flight experience?


TC329,

Why no answer to my question?

[bje]

again you are being purposely dishonest.

cit "refuses" to interview no one.

STOP lying, TC329. CIT specifically refuses to interview eyewitnesses.

Craig Ranke:
"Even if someone interviewed all allegedly 1,000 people that you speak of, if they didn't see the plane nothing they could possibly say could refute the information we present."you're free to try and help find means of contacting the others and verifying their statements It is not our responsibility to conduct YOUR investigation.

Tell us, TC329, when are you going to stop lying about the eyewitnesses? CIT admitted never interviewing any of the over 1,000 key eyewitnesses at the Pentagon.

[Jonnyclueless]

1:01 - 1:05

according to some estimates we cannot track 2.3 trillion dollars in transactions.

But DOm, you said trillions were "MISSING". Please show us the quote of that. You are trying to lead people to believe that money just disappeared. That's not remotely what the quote you just presented says. And of course had to listened to the speech for more than the single quote you use, you might understand what he was talking about and it would be much more obvious to everyone that you are flat out LYING.

For the people who aren't aware of the issue, i will explain. Dom already knows this, it's just that he is well...LYING. What Dom wants people to think is that 2.3 trillion dollars just suddenly disappeared from the defense budget. **Poof** like magic. What Dom wants you to believe is that 6 years of defense budget are suddenly gone. 6 years. So for 6 years not a single military employee nor contractor has gotten a dime because all that 6 years of money went missing. So for 6 years those millions of families went with no income and never said a word and to this day have not once complained. Dom wants us to think that military employees can live for 6 years with no income. Tell us how they do it Dom. Do they have some kind of amazing layaway plan Dom?

Of course anyone who actually listens to Rumsfeld speech outside of the DISHONEST quote mining on Dom's part will know the answer and will easily see that Dom is outright LYING about that claim. Because what Rumsfeld is talking about the red tape and the outdated methods of accounting which take so long to process the spending that there is a backlog of around 2.3 trillion dollars. That means it takes them about 6 years to do all the accounting. They spend a dollar today and it takes years before the accounting process catches up with how that dollar was spent. Rumsfeld was complaining about this problem because it allows people to take advantage and abuse the system knowing it will be several years before the accounting catches up with them.

Dom, please stop LYING.

[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?

[TheLoneBedouin]

CIT specifically refuses to interview eyewitnesses.
You, BJE, are lying, since this quote:
"Even if someone interviewed all allegedly 1,000 people that you speak of, if they didn't see the plane nothing they could possibly say could refute the information we present."
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.