I'd Appreciate Some Help Regarding CIT Witnesses

[Eyeron]

I'd appreciate resources that debunk this claim:

CIT have 14 witnesses that were rigorously interviewed on camera and idnependently corroborated the story that the plane was in a very specific position.

Essentially this is deference to the claim that a missile hit the pentagon and not the plane because the hole was too small for a plane.

I asked my friend what about the witnesses who corroborated the official story in the same way? She asked if I had any specific facts to back up my claim and what does the black box say about the claim?

I'm unable to support my own beliefs and would appreciate any help with this claim.

Thank you.

[Hokulele]

If your friend is asking you for witnesses corroborating the physical evidence, here are 16 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/S?ammem/afc911bib:@field(SUBJ+@od1(Pentagon++Va++--Terrorist+Attack--2001))).

[dtugg]

The Complete Idiot Team's cherry picked witnesses all say that the plane hit the Pentagon.

[jhunter1163]

Essentially this is deference to the claim that a missile hit the pentagon and not the plane because the hole was too small for a plane.

Not only that, but they also believe that the plane then flew over the Pentagon, even though there is indisputable radar and video evidence that this did not happen.

Gravy's links have all sorts of debunking of this so-called "theory", even though it's obvious to anyone with two brain cells firing that it's utter nonsense.

[beachnut]

Watch the witnesses point to the real flight path. It is funny as CIT are too stupid to see they posted their own debunking. Boger saw 77 enter the Pentagon. Oops, their witness.

[Stellafane]

The Complete Idiot Team's cherry picked witnesses all say that the plane hit the Pentagon.

This is what makes the CIT boys the Pathetic Kings in Patheticland. They interviewed a bunch of witnesses. As far as I know, every single one of them said the plane hit the Pentagon. A small percentage said they saw the plane in places that apparently differ in varying degrees from where it actually was. The CIT boys think this this is important for some reason, and (even more bizarre) supports their (quite literally) insane idea that the plane didn't hit the Pentagon. Which I guess it does, so long as you ignore the little fact that all their own witnesses say it did. And that's not even getting into all the other things, such as what became of the plane after it flew over the Pentagon and why not a single witness -- either on the spot or via radar -- ever saw the plane fly off into parts unknown. Et cetera.

If you find all this weird and confusing, you're not alone. To me, the biggest mystery of all is why anyone, anywhere with even a passing acquaintance with sanity and logic would take these two doofuses seriously for so much as a nanosecond.

[Hokulele]

Back to the OP, the person who posted here as 911files had a ton of stuff archived as well. I am not sure of the current status of his site, maybe you can PM Kilmax for details.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=142746&page=3

[Sam.I.Am]

why not a single witness -- either on the spot or via radar -- ever saw the plane fly off into parts unknown. Et cetera.

A nice day outside on a weekday in the largest office building in the world and not one person was in the courtyard to hear the plane fly over? :boggled:

[Macgyver1968]

From what I understand about their theory...is the plane took a different flight path than indicated in the official report. A path that would have made knocking down the light poles impossible. It then approached the pentagon, and at the last second pulled up, flew over the pentagon, just as explosives when off, disgusting the flyover and making everyone think the plane hit the pentagon. (I'd like to know from Beechnut how hard would it be to pull up an airplane while flying through an explosion) All of the plane debris at the scene was planted, and so were the knocked over light poles.

To me this is one of the most puzzling of 911 theories. Anyone with a grain of reason can see the GAPPING holes in the story...However the CIT guys just don't. I actually joined their little forum to ask them about it one drunk night, but never posted anything, as I felt it was a complete waste of time.

Things I'd love for them to explain:

1. Why would the insiders stage a fake plane crash..when 2 others had already occurred that day?

2. What benefit would the insider's gain to further the plan by faking a plane crash?

3. How is it out of hundreds of witnesses, no one saw the plane fly over?

4. If the plane debris was planted, when did the insiders have the opportunity to plant it? If it was planted before the crash..someone would have noticed plane parts all over the ground. If was planted after the crash, the witnesses that saw the plane fly in would have seen them being planted. It's not like they all packed up and left the scene immediately following the crash.

5. How is it possible for Aldo to destroy a buffet from both ends simultaneously? :)

Inquiring minds want to know!

[Justin39640]

From what I understand about their theory...is the plane took a different flight path than indicated in the official report. A path that would have made knocking down the light poles impossible. It then approached the pentagon, and at the last second pulled up, flew over the pentagon, just as explosives when off, disgusting the flyover and making everyone think the plane hit the pentagon. (I'd like to know from Beechnut how hard would it be to pull up an airplane while flying through an explosion) All of the plane debris at the scene was planted, and so were the knocked over light poles.

To me this is one of the most puzzling of 911 theories. Anyone with a grain of reason can see the GAPPING holes in the story...However the CIT guys just don't. I actually joined their little forum to ask them about it one drunk night, but never posted anything, as I felt it was a complete waste of time.

Things I'd love for them to explain:

1. Why would the insiders stage a fake plane crash..when 2 others had already occurred that day?

2. What benefit would the insider's gain to further the plan by faking a plane crash?

3. How is it out of hundreds of witnesses, no one saw the plane fly over?

4. If the plane debris was planted, when did the insiders have the opportunity to plant it? If it was planted before the crash..someone would have noticed plane parts all over the ground. If was planted after the crash, the witnesses that saw the plane fly in would have seen them being planted. It's not like they all packed up and left the scene immediately following the crash.

5. How is it possible for Aldo to destroy a buffet from both ends simultaneously? :)

Inquiring minds want to know!

i really think the whole CIT thing is an attempt to cash in on truthers wallets using a different angle than loose change

craig - "i need me a new idea to make me some money"
that became:
http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/3805/craiglego.gif

[FineWine]

I'd appreciate resources that debunk this claim:


Essentially this is deference to the claim that a missile hit the pentagon and not the plane because the hole was too small for a plane.

I asked my friend what about the witnesses who corroborated the official story in the same way? She asked if I had any specific facts to back up my claim and what does the black box say about the claim?

I'm unable to support my own beliefs and would appreciate any help with this claim.

Thank you.


Here's all you need to know about the frauds of the CIT, who are stupid for "truthers." Reflect on what a staggering statement that is.

They browbeat their witnesses to say that the plane flew north of the CITGO station. It didn't, but that's not important. What they will NEVER do, despite being called on their deceptive tactics countless times, is ask their witnesses to resolve the contradiction: either the plane hit the Pentagon (as all their witnesses contend), or the flight path made it impossible to hit the Pentagon.
One of these mutually-exclusive assertions has to be abandoned. But the frauds will never address this major flaw in their insane hypothesis.

[T.A.M.]

I'd appreciate resources that debunk this claim:


Essentially this is deference to the claim that a missile hit the pentagon and not the plane because the hole was too small for a plane.

I asked my friend what about the witnesses who corroborated the official story in the same way? She asked if I had any specific facts to back up my claim and what does the black box say about the claim?

I'm unable to support my own beliefs and would appreciate any help with this claim.

Thank you.

Good luck.

TAM:)

[Eyeron]

Well I've already posted the link to the witness and she never read them and just dismissed them out of hand and continued on with her the plane took a different route theory.

Thanks everyone. I gave it the old college try but no matter how hard you try and how much evidence there is they just will not believe anything other than what they want to believe.

[FineWine]

Well I've already posted the link to the witness and she never read them and just dismissed them out of hand and continued on with her the plane took a different route theory.

Thanks everyone. I gave it the old college try but no matter how hard you try and how much evidence there is they just will not believe anything other than what they want to believe.


Ask her if it is significant that the CIT's witnesses claim to have seen the plane hit the Pentagon.

[A W Smith]

5. How is it possible for Aldo to destroy a buffet from both ends simultaneously? :)

Inquiring minds want to know!


He doesn't. He penetrates through 3 rings and six walls of buffet tables.

[Audible Click]

i really think the whole CIT thing is an attempt to cash in on truthers wallets using a different angle than loose change

craig - "i need me a new idea to make me some money"
that became:
http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/3805/craiglego.gif

Love it. Kudos!

[dtugg]

i really think the whole CIT thing is an attempt to cash in on truthers wallets using a different angle than loose change

craig - "i need me a new idea to make me some money"
that became:
http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/3805/craiglego.gif

LOL. They may have well been thinking that. There is no way those dumbasses have made any money off of their insane "theory" though.

[jhunter1163]

I think Craig and Aldo (and a few others) saw the success of Loose Change (such as it was) as an opportunity to make a name for themselves and a few bucks into the bargain. What they didn't figure on was that debunkers would come along and demolish every so-called alternate theory of the events of 9/11, leaving them with egg on their faces and large balances on their Visa cards.

[Caustic Logic]

i really think the whole CIT thing is an attempt to cash in on truthers wallets using a different angle than loose change

craig - "i need me a new idea to make me some money"
that became:
http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/3805/craiglego.gif

OMG the duhbunkahz has teh aminated FIGs too we s n trbl
/CIT goon

hehe

[1337m4n]

Has CIT even posted videos of their interviews with all 14 yet?

All I'm ever able to find are the orginal four that started their whole cult.

[Klimax]

Back to the OP, the person who posted here as 911files had a ton of stuff archived as well. I am not sure of the current status of his site, maybe you can PM Kilmax for details.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=142746&page=3

Current status is according to my memory:
-he is hosting it on his own computer with public IP and redirected there his domain.
-I have all from original server and 911files is now uploading new files.
I will update filelist and will see if I can make some searchable(properly) pages.

Some material is supposed to be hosted on other debunking servers.(Maybe MikeW ?)

These files contain data about flights and various audio recordings.

[Bobert]

Sorry if OT but I couldnt help but chuckle at our boy Aldo.
It seems that lately he is on the hunt for truthers to add to his "face to name" (aka enemies list)
I love this gem and I wonder if Aldo hears voices:
This is ?Erik? from Rancho 9/11 Truth. I can't see this guy being an op or provocatuer because Rancho Cucmonga is out in the boondocks and it seems like such an ineffective location to be in if you are trying to make waves. He sounds a like a do-gooder who probably means well he is just completely uninformed and under the spell of groupthink at his little hangout, truthaction.

If I see him at a function, I will definitely be confronting him on our evidence and accusations of being disinfo.

I can't see this guy being an op or provocatuer because Rancho Cucmonga is out in the boondocks and it seems like such an ineffective location to be in if you are trying to make waves.
:dl: :dl:
The irony of Aldo saying this is that he goes nuts over what is said on the internet yet you can say things on the internet from anywhere.

[Justin39640]

i have a theory on their witnesses too
i think they saw the shadow of the plane which by what i can tell may have been north of citgo
i think pentagon police should be trustworthy but their senses may have been fooled by this and the short time they probably saw the plane for (they may have only seen the plane after it passed)
not to mention they all say it hit the building completely debunking CITs theory

im screwing around with models in google earth to try and see where the planes shadow would have been in respect to citgo but i just started to learn how to do this and im pretty busy with work (about to do a power transmission rebuild and install tonight) maybe by monday ill have something to show
maybe someone has experience in this and can try it out

glad you guys liked my lil animation ty :) lol

[Caustic Logic]

Isn't it sad how we jump on a chance to help some drive-by one-question person who's only a liiiiitttle interested in helping a friend with an unlikely delusion?

And here I've got the big blog almost all about debunking CIT and I'm not even mentioning it, to avoid the temptation. Oops. Eyeron, if you're genuine and still about: http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/

Justin: IMO the shadow can't explain it, since that was south of the Citgo as well. (though less south, see video Flight 77's shadow) IMO little except witness dishonesty can account for Lagasse, Brooks, and Turcios.

And at any rate, the plane WAS NOT north of Citgo, and the geometry problem is therefore moot. This leaves ZERO supporting anything but impact, which HAD to come from south of the Citgo and descend to "where the building meets the ground" (Lagasse's words) and into it.

I say this not to "stop CIT from revealing the truth" but simply cause I know the stuff and like to look smart. :D

[FineWine]

Isn't it sad how we jump on a chance to help some drive-by one-question person who's only a liiiiitttle interested in helping a friend with an unlikely delusion?

And here I've got the big blog almost all about debunking CIT and I'm not even mentioning it, to avoid the temptation. Oops. Eyeron, if you're genuine and still about: http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/

Justin: IMO the shadow can't explain it, since that was south of the Citgo as well. (though less south, see video Flight 77's shadow) IMO little except witness dishonesty can account for Lagasse, Brooks, and Turcios.

And at any rate, the plane WAS NOT north of Citgo, and the geometry problem is therefore moot. This leaves ZERO supporting anything but impact, which HAD to come from south of the Citgo and descend to "where the building meets the ground" (Lagasse's words) and into it.

I say this not to "stop CIT from revealing the truth" but simply cause I know the stuff and like to look smart. :D


Not to quibble, but when you allege "witness dishonesty" and mention Lagasse in the same breath, I have to scratch my head. Lagasse loathes the CIT-heads. He regards them as lying imbeciles. What would be his motive here?

[Eyeron]

Also, does anybody have any info on the results from the black box recovered from the plane?

[Caustic Logic]

Also, does anybody have any info on the results from the black box recovered from the plane?

Well hey! Here's the fun thing about this topic - it's so thoroughly debunked from so many angles it's just a cakewalk to pick the best angle and go for it.

Now on the black box, the results are: totally consistent with radar tracks for the majority of flight. The critical final stretch where it passed south of the Citgo is not in radar or FDR data. It was too low for radar to see and for whatever reason, the last several seconds (4-8?) of FDR data is missing. What IS there leads right to the south path and could only connect to North of the Citgo with probably impossible maneuvers.

Also, the FDR unit the data was pulled from was found well inside the pentagon among the rest of th eplane and many dead people and damaged columns, etc.

Your friend is on about the eyewitness flight path, and the FDR. Now, if she believes the FDR supports the north path witnesses, that's funny. The actual data does total zero to support north path, while an FDR-based animation that was poorly done seems to.

I have proven in different ways that the animation's apparent path is based on a ground-grid set to magnetic, not true north, and the final map area rotated the wrong way from that. Cumulative error, rougly measured, is almost exactly the heading diff. between the real data and the animated path. I made a video to illustrate my findings:
http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/educational/watch/v14941428336hFj9K
But the short story: that cartoon does NOT accurately represent the data, which is available in the form of tons o' numbers you could understand with some work...

Even the dummies who originated that idea no longer stand by it. Pilots for 9/11 Truth (or PFFFFFT as we call them) had made some noise about how "the FDR" shows the north path which means flyover, etc... then when this was shown dumber than dumb they tried to say they never said that. I cornered their leader on the issue, it's fun reading:
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/04/cherry-pie-from-robs-orchard.html

Does any of this answer your questions, or just got you more confused? I'm trying to help. :)

[Caustic Logic]

Not to quibble, but when you allege "witness dishonesty" and mention Lagasse in the same breath, I have to scratch my head. Lagasse loathes the CIT-heads. He regards them as lying imbeciles. What would be his motive here?

In fact I find Lt. Bill the most dishonest of them all, with his history back to 2003 with Dick Eastman, he had YEARS to re-think his 100% certain "memory error" and totally failed to get his head on straight before CIT came along, or even after that.

How I see Lagasse is a good, genuine, astute, and useful witness, who has consciously altered one fact - a mirror flip around himself and the station from south to north - and otherwise tells it like it is. I chose that line 'cause it's one of the best for clarifying no matter what anyone says, it hit and it hit low. No pull-up or nothing. Oh, but he was "deceived," or whatever, man... :rolleyes:

Lying witnesses is not a popular theory but I stand by it. The thread for challenging it is the one I started to discuss it, which is here.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=121797
As for motive, I tend more towards prank than disinfo. He hates truthers, which means no respect. No respect plus laws against violence equals, maybe:
"What else can I do? This Eastman douche wants to interview me and cherry-pick for no-plane-crash evidence? Why don't I just hand him an irresistable giant turd of one? Yank 'em around, drop the wrist-cutters some metal scraps. Ah yeah, you little ****s, it must of flied right over then huh?!? Wow, I had no idea, I thought it CRASHED, silly me. But it was too far north wasn't it? Wow You guys ROCK!!!

[UNLoVedRebel]

In fact I find Lt. Bill the most dishonest of them all, with his history back to 2003 with Dick Eastman, he had YEARS to re-think his 100% certain "memory error" and totally failed to get his head on straight before CIT came along, or even after that.

How I see Lagasse is a good, genuine, astute, and useful witness, who has consciously altered one fact - a mirror flip around himself and the station from south to north - and otherwise tells it like it is. I chose that line 'cause it's one of the best for clarifying no matter what anyone says, it hit and it hit low. No pull-up or nothing. Oh, but he was "deceived," or whatever, man... :rolleyes:

Lying witnesses is not a popular theory but I stand by it. The thread for challenging it is the one I started to discuss it, which is here.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=121797
As for motive, I tend more towards prank than disinfo. He hates truthers, which means no respect. No respect plus laws against violence equals, maybe:
Lying witnesses is a terrible theory (no offense). With the exception of "you can't see the light poles from here" there is no deception on Lagasse's part. Dick Eastman pissed him off, then asked him a bunch of questions. Not exactly the best way to interview a witness. Studies have shown that when making a public claim, people almost never back out on it, even if the claim is proven wrong.

[Caustic Logic]

Lying witnesses is a terrible theory (no offense). With the exception of "you can't see the light poles from here" there is no deception on Lagasse's part. Dick Eastman pissed him off, then asked him a bunch of questions. Not exactly the best way to interview a witness. Studies have shown that when making a public claim, people almost never back out on it, even if the claim is proven wrong.

That's an insight, an uncontrollable serial stand-offishness he just can't back out of. hence, the gag order-type thing. Conscious vs. subconscious etc... I should've just not mentioned it or especially elaborated. The to the OP, this is just a side-discussion on what kind of wrong the NoC fairy tale is.

I'm certainly not angry or demanding penalties or anything - it would be funny actually. But for imagined legal reasons let me just state that all speculation aside, Lt. Lagasse is probably categorically innocent of any deceit.

To answer 1337m4n
Has CIT even posted videos of their interviews with all 14 yet?

All I'm ever able to find are the orginal four that started their whole cult.
In fact I think all of them are available as video or audio in a video. When you watch them you can see/hear just what CIT did wrong. Sgt. Roosevelt Roberts is one of the 14, the one that directly contradicts NoC, but does give them a flyover-ish-sorta thing which proves NoC... It's sort of fun to find where the folds and the tape are and tear it back apart, but you have to find and watch their loooong videos to do so. Cherish your ignorance on these things, and quit asking questions. :)

Alright, if Eyeron has any more questions, I'm available. Otherwise as always we are :deadhorse

[BigAl]

The black boxes have been discussed in great detail in other threads. The search function is your friend.

[T.A.M.]

Eyeron:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/pentagonattackpage2

TAM:)