Does CIT claim TWO planes, one south, one north?

[Panoply_Prefect]

I'm back debating Pentagon, and "North of Citgo". I must admit I haven't paid any attention to CIT since ummm... well -07 or so, so I might have missed something, but.... do they nowadays claim that one plane flew north of citgo, only to pull up just prior to hitting the Pentagon, and ANOTHER plane flew south of citgo, that actually did hit the building?

Or is it still "flyover"+ bombs?

A truther is coming at me with the first option, two planes (optionally, one plane, one missile. Or something).

Cheers,
PP

[Macgyver1968]

Last time I checked, it was still a North of the Citgo, then a pull up and bombs.

hehe...my 1 and 1/2 year old niece made a bomb in her pull up that smelled better. :)

[W.D.Clinger]

I'm back debating Pentagon, and "North of Citgo". I must admit I haven't paid any attention to CIT since ummm... well -07 or so, so I might have missed something, but....

Lucky you.

These might help:

http://aal77.com/citgo/Citgo%20Update.pdf
http://911files.info/citgo/citgo_video_overview.pdf

Will

[bill smith]

I'm back debating Pentagon, and "North of Citgo". I must admit I haven't paid any attention to CIT since ummm... well -07 or so, so I might have missed something, but.... do they nowadays claim that one plane flew north of citgo, only to pull up just prior to hitting the Pentagon, and ANOTHER plane flew south of citgo, that actually did hit the building?

Or is it still "flyover"+ bombs?

A truther is coming at me with the first option, two planes (optionally, one plane, one missile. Or something).

Cheers,
PP

Here's their entire 81-minute exhaustively researched video so you can check it again to be certain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o Pentagon flyover- the proof

[Myriad]

Considering the effectiveness of the "Pentagon flyover" hypothesis at making the Truth Movement look ridiculous externally and polarizing it into feckless feuding factions internally, I support bill smith's efforts to spam the link to CIT's excellent video in as many posts as possible (within what's allowed by the MA, of course).

So, here's that link again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o.

Remember the key points of the CIT's claims:

- The passenger airliner pulled up at the last moment and flew over the Pentagon.
- The actual damage to the Pentagon was done by bombs detonating in synch with the flyover.
- Everyone who claims to have personally eyewitnessed the plane crashing into the lower floors of the Pentagon was deceived by this trick.
- Many people on other sides of the building likely witnessed and heard a passenger jet flying low over the Pentagon just barely clearing the building at high speeds moments after the explosion, but never bother to mention it because they thought it was a different aircraft and therefore unimportant.

It's important to be able to make those claims with a straight face. This might require some practice.

Tell all your friends! Post that link everywhere!

Respectfully,
Myriad

[16.5]

=bill smith;5207029]Here's their entire 81-minute exhaustively researched video so you can check it again to be certain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o Pentagon flyover- the proof

And here is the exhaustively researched undercover video captured a few weeks ago of Aldo the Buffet Slayer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aczPDGC3f8U[

[Panoply_Prefect]

Tnx everyone, the truther in question has moved on to claiming a lot of experienced pilots are behind the FDR-analysis made by Pft, that clearly states that the plane were at some 134 meters above ground prior to impact.

Its hard to keep up.

[Myriad]

And here is the exhaustively researched undercover video captured a few weeks ago of Aldo the Buffet Slayer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aczPDGC3f8U[


You appear to be confused. That's not the link to CIT's history-making must-see video! This is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[bill smith]

Considering the effectiveness of the "Pentagon flyover" hypothesis at making the Truth Movement look ridiculous externally and polarizing it into feckless feuding factions internally, I support bill smith's efforts to spam the link to CIT's excellent video in as many posts as possible (within what's allowed by the MA, of course).

So, here's that link again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o.

Remember the key points of the CIT's claims:

- The passenger airliner pulled up at the last moment and flew over the Pentagon.
- The actual damage to the Pentagon was done by bombs detonating in synch with the flyover.
- Everyone who claims to have personally eyewitnessed the plane crashing into the lower floors of the Pentagon was deceived by this trick.
- Many people on other sides of the building likely witnessed and heard a passenger jet flying low over the Pentagon just barely clearing the building at high speeds moments after the explosion, but never bother to mention it because they thought it was a different aircraft and therefore unimportant.

It's important to be able to make those claims with a straight face. This might require some practice.

Tell all your friends! Post that link everywhere!

Respectfully,
Myriad

You should be sure to advise people to make it a hyperlink Myriad. In that way accusations of 'spamming' are avoided.

The simplest thing is for people to simply watch the video and be inavoidably 100% convinced of the inside job at the Pentagon, and by extension of all of 9/11 of course.

100% eyewitness confirmation is mighty convincing as people will find ehen they take this video in..

[Myriad]

You should be sure to advise people to make it a hyperlink Myriad. In that way accusations of 'spamming' are avoided.


Good advice.

Folks, when you post a link, please make sure it's a hyperlink. And not a... um... one of those other kinds of links that are deficient in hyperness.

However, also be advised that posting the same link (however hyper) repeatedly on flimsy pretexts will not reliably avoid accusations (nor the actual fact) of 'spamming,' nor prevent the repercussions for same from affecting one's posting privileges. Check the usage policies of the site you're posting them on.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[bill smith]

Tnx everyone, the truther in question has moved on to claiming a lot of experienced pilots are behind the FDR-analysis made by Pft, that clearly states that the plane were at some 134 meters above ground prior to impact.

Its hard to keep up.

Be like Boxer. You must work harder.

[bill smith]

Good advice.

Folks, when you post a link, please make sure it's a hyperlink. And not a... um... one of those other kinds of links that are deficient in hyperness.

However, also be advised that posting the same link (however hyper) repeatedly on flimsy pretexts will not reliably avoid accusations (nor the actual fact) of 'spamming,' nor prevent the repercussions for same from affecting one's posting privileges. Check the usage policies of the site you're posting them on.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Jeez....and there I was firing it all over the internet.......

[Macgyver1968]

You should be sure to advise people to make it a hyperlink Myriad. In that way accusations of 'spamming' are avoided.

The simplest thing is for people to simply watch the video and be inavoidably 100% convinced of the inside job at the Pentagon, and by extension of all of 9/11 of course.

100% eyewitness confirmation is mighty convincing as people will find ehen they take this video in..

Ok..I'll bite, Bill. 100%? You mean all of the eyewitness at the pentegon saw what they claim? Funny.

[bill smith]

Considering the effectiveness of the "Pentagon flyover" hypothesis at making the Truth Movement look ridiculous externally and polarizing it into feckless feuding factions internally, I support bill smith's efforts to spam the link to CIT's excellent video in as many posts as possible (within what's allowed by the MA, of course).

So, here's that link again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o.

Remember the key points of the CIT's claims:

- The passenger airliner pulled up at the last moment and flew over the Pentagon.
- The actual damage to the Pentagon was done by bombs detonating in synch with the flyover.
- Everyone who claims to have personally eyewitnessed the plane crashing into the lower floors of the Pentagon was deceived by this trick.
- Many people on other sides of the building likely witnessed and heard a passenger jet flying low over the Pentagon just barely clearing the building at high speeds moments after the explosion, but never bother to mention it because they thought it was a different aircraft and therefore unimportant.

It's important to be able to make those claims with a straight face. This might require some practice.

Tell all your friends! Post that link everywhere!

Respectfully,
Myriad

Lets face it Myriad....if the plane flew on the North side of the Citgo gas station as 100% of the eyewitnesses say it did then it definately didn't hit the Pentagon. There are at least 10 of these witnesses including police officers. 100% confirmation.

That means that ALL of the eyewitnesses to the plane impact (only the impact) were SHILLS as many of us have been saying for years.

People can check the link you have scattered around for the absolute proof that this must be so...

[Cuddles]

the plane were at some 134 meters above ground prior to impact.

You'd kind of assume it was above ground prior to impact really. Otherwise it wouldn't be prior.:)

Lets face it Myriad....if the plane flew on the North side of the Citgo gas station as 100% of the eyewitnesses say it did then it definately didn't hit the Pentagon. There are at least 10 of these witnesses including police officers. 100% confirmation.

That means that ALL of the eyewitnesses to the plane impact (only the impact) were SHILLS as many of us have been saying for years.

So the fact that many of those eyewitnesses are the same people doesn't bother you? They're 100% reliable when saying one thing, and paid government shills when they say something else? This is why even other truthers don't take this nonsense seriously.

[sylvan8798]

Maybe it's the 10 who say it flew NOC who are the shills...

I'd love to know how many people CIT talked to who didn't say NOC, and didn't get included in their little video. I asked over at LCF why we should believe that they included everyone they talked to in their film, but they kept ignoring me for some strange reason.

[bill smith]

You'd kind of assume it was above ground prior to impact really. Otherwise it wouldn't be prior.:)



So the fact that many of those eyewitnesses are the same people doesn't bother you? They're 100% reliable when saying one thing, and paid government shills when they say something else? This is why even other truthers don't take this nonsense seriously.

That's about 440 feet Cuddles.- One second or so prior to impact. Some steep dive I'd say.

None of the witnesses in the CIT video witnessed the impact. The witnesses who said they witnessed the impact on 9/11 were ALL SHILLS. Every last one of them.

[CHF]

That means that ALL of the eyewitnesses to the plane impact (only the impact) were SHILLS as many of us have been saying for years.

The best thing to do with a comment that idiotic is to emphasize it.

[Macgyver1968]

That's about 440 feet Cuddles.- One second or so prior to impact. Some steep dive I'd say.

None of the witnesses in the CIT video witnessed the impact. The witnesses who said they witnessed the impact on 9/11 were ALL SHILLS. Every last one of them.

LOL..your trolling is so funny, Bill. Even CIT themselves don't believe such a preposterous statement. I've never "stundied" anyone...but this is truly deserving.

[bill smith]

LOL..your trolling is so funny, Bill. Even CIT themselves don't believe such a preposterous statement. I've never "stundied" anyone...but this is truly deserving.

Of course CIT believe it. THere is nothing else to believe.

[Macgyver1968]

Of course CIT believe it. THere is nothing else to believe.

No they don't, they believe those that saw a plane impact the Pentegon were mistaken, or were at the wrong angle to see it, or were fooled by the explosions. They might believe some of them were planted shills, but certainly not all of them.

[funk de fino]

Of course CIT believe it. THere is nothing else to believe.

No. you are wrong again. The majority of witness they say support them, who say it hit the building, have been fooled according to them. They are not paid shills.

You know, sometuimes when you make a false claim (like your Fox footage one) you should just admit it and move on.

[funk de fino]

That's about 440 feet Cuddles.- One second or so prior to impact. Some steep dive I'd say.

None of the witnesses in the CIT video witnessed the impact. The witnesses who said they witnessed the impact on 9/11 were ALL SHILLS. Every last one of them.

You know nothing about altimeters do you?

[bill smith]

No they don't, they believe those that saw a plane impact the Pentegon were mistaken, or were at the wrong angle to see it, or were fooled by the explosions. They might believe some of them were planted shills, but certainly not all of them.

I wouldn't bet on that but whatever. The meaning is the same. Inside job all the way.

[bill smith]

You know nothing about altimeters do you?

No but I have audio that I can post from a guy who knows all there is to know about it. He confirms....

[funk de fino]

No but I have audio that I can post from a guy who knows all there is to know about it. He confirms....

I bet he knows less than me.

PS - One of the CIT witness debunks the height claim. Its triple corroborated according to them so he must be right and your aircraft height is wrong. I will let you discover which one.

[Macgyver1968]

I wouldn't bet on that but whatever. The meaning is the same. Inside job all the way.

I can't post over there anymore, but I tell you what..I'll email Craig and ask him. Maybe he will respond.

[bje]

You should be sure to advise people to make it a hyperlink Myriad. In that way accusations of 'spamming' are avoided.

The simplest thing is for people to simply watch the video and be inavoidably 100% convinced of the inside job at the Pentagon, and by extension of all of 9/11 of course.

100% eyewitness confirmation is mighty convincing as people will find ehen they take this video in..

Did you already forget that Craig Ranke and Co. have never produced a single eyewitness from the hundreds who were all around the Pentagon on the freeways, bridges, in the Pentagon parking lots, and other buildings, who all were in a position to see a flyover who ever stated they saw one?

Despite being asked repeatedly to do so for the last three years.

Let me know if you need a reminder, Bill.

[bill smith]

I bet he knows less than me.

PS - One of the CIT witness debunks the height claim. Its triple corroborated according to them so he must be right and your aircraft height is wrong. I will let you discover which one.

Here's a fun video in the meantime.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyUnrwBsZHA

[bill smith]

Did you already forget that Craig Ranke and Co. have never produced a single eyewitness from the hundreds who were all around the Pentagon on the freeways, bridges, in the Pentagon parking lots, and other buildings, who all were in a position to see a flyover who ever stated they saw one?

Despite being asked repeatedly to do so for the last three years.

Let me know if you need a reminder, Bill.

We could have a full new investigation and investigate the lot. Sound like an idea ? Haw Haw Haw.

[Dave Rogers]

The meaning is the same. Inside job all the way.

This is, in fact, a perfectly general statement for bill smith. Whatever the premise, the conclusion is always that 9/11 was an inside job.

Dave

[HyJinX]

We could have a full new investigation and investigate the lot. Sound like an idea ? Haw Haw Haw.

You go ahead and get that started and let us know how it turns out.

[bill smith]

This is, in fact, a perfectly general statement for bill smith. Whatever the premise, the conclusion is always that 9/11 was an inside job.

Dave
Maybe you thought I was 'just asking questions' Dave ? lol

[aggle-rithm]

We could have a full new investigation and investigate the lot. Sound like an idea ? Haw Haw Haw.

You have my permission to get started on that. Please let me know how it comes out.

ETA: Hyjinx beat me to it! There you go, Bill. You've got the explicit blessing of TWO of us. Get cracking!

[aggle-rithm]

This is, in fact, a perfectly general statement for bill smith. Whatever the premise, the conclusion is always that 9/11 was an inside job.

Dave

Premise: "My cat's breath smells like cat food."
Conclusion: "Inside job."

That's what we call a "grey hole" of logic.

[funk de fino]

Here's a fun video in the meantime.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyUnrwBsZHA

Its not fun. Its irrelevant. I know more about altimeters than your audio guy or you. I guarantee it.

You lied about CIT witness, get over it.

[bje]

We could have a full new investigation and investigate the lot. Sound like an idea ? Haw Haw Haw.

Have fun trying to convince anyone you need to have an investigation of an invisible and silent Boeing 757 flying over the Pentagon.

I can't wait for the reaction you get!

:D

[dudalb]

The best thing to do with a comment that idiotic is to emphasize it.








Sometimes one facepalm is just not enough,and Bill Smith's "They are all shills" comment is one of them. Something that idiotic deserves special attention.
:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_188404a92e50f7158b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17399)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1884048ca062020e8b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13773)

[Longfellow]

...(snip)

That means that ALL of the eyewitnesses to the plane impact (only the impact) were SHILLS as many of us have been saying for years.

...(snip)


The best thing to do with a comment that idiotic is to emphasize it.


Q.E.D.

[dudalb]

Of course there is the possiblity that bill smith lives under a bridge or in a cave:


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_188404a7757c154cee.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17115)

[nicepants]

Premise: "My cat's breath smells like cat food."
Conclusion: "Inside job."

That's what we call a "grey hole" of logic.


Eyewitnesses reported seeing a cat NORTH of the Cat food Dish.
Therefore, the cat couldn't have eaten the cat food
The cat must have been doped with a chemical that smells like cat food, meanwhile the cat food in the dish was removed by some other means that no eyewitnesses were able to see. This proves that the cat food disappearance was a deliberate deception.
The cab driver who said he saw the cat eating cat food is obviously a liar because the other eyewitnesses explicitly place the cat north of the cat food dish.


I find it amusing to apply truthers' logic to non 9/11 events just to illustrate the absurdity.

[Macgyver1968]

I can't post over there anymore, but I tell you what..I'll email Craig and ask him. Maybe he will respond.

Well Bill, Craig was nice enough to respond. Here's what he said:

Mitch,


He is completely wrong about our position and I would say that you have characterized it correctly. A lot of people tend to lie about our claims as this continuously happens by jref types as well as by others who pose as our "supporters". Never believe what anyone ever says about the claims of CIT without quotes and sourced links to make sure they are presented correctly in context.


Craig



Here's a nice napkin to wipe the egg off your face, Bill.

Thanks Craig, if your lurking.

[bill smith]

Well Bill, Craig was nice enough to respond. Here's what he said:



Here's a nice napkin to wipe the egg off your face, Bill.

Thanks Craig, if your lurking.

He really said the following ? Wow. What did I get wrong then ?

''Mitch,
He is completely wrong about our position and I would say that you have characterized it correctly. A lot of people tend to lie about our claims as this continuously happens by jref types as well as by others who pose as our "supporters". Never believe what anyone ever says about the claims of CIT without quotes and sourced links to make sure they are presented correctly in context.
Craig''

I sure hope he steps in to have a chat about it. I would like to be enlightened.

[Macgyver1968]

Craig can't post here..I believe he was banned. What was wrong,is that he doesn't believe EVERY person who says they saw the plane hit the Pentagon was a shill.

And Bill...if you such a supporter of his position, you should at least read what they believe.

[W.D.Clinger]

He really said the following ? Wow. What did I get wrong then ?

Craig might understand the difference between

All of the eyewitnesses are shills.
Although some may be shills, most are just mistaken.

I would like to be enlightened.

I share your desire.

Will

[funk de fino]

He really said the following ? Wow. What did I get wrong then ?

''Mitch,
He is completely wrong about our position and I would say that you have characterized it correctly. A lot of people tend to lie about our claims as this continuously happens by jref types as well as by others who pose as our "supporters". Never believe what anyone ever says about the claims of CIT without quotes and sourced links to make sure they are presented correctly in context.
Craig''

I sure hope he steps in to have a chat about it. I would like to be enlightened.

Ho ho. What a slap in the chops from your heroes.

[bill smith]

Craig can't post here..I believe he was banned. What was wrong,is that he doesn't believe EVERY person who says they saw the plane hit the Pentagon was a shill.

And Bill...if you such a supporter of his position, you should at least read what they believe.

If one person really saw the plane hit the Pentagon- then a plane hit the Pentagon, end of story. But we know with 100% certainty that the plane flew on a trajectory that did not permit it to hit the Pentagon so we know that nobody saw it hit .

Now if I follow it corectly there is no suggestion that there was any second plane. So where is the problem ?

[Macgyver1968]

If one person really saw the plane hit the Pentagon- then a plane hit the Pentagon, end of story. But we know with 100% certainty that the plane flew on a trajectory that did not permit it to hit the Pentagon so we know that nobody saw it hit .

Now if I follow it corectly there is no suggestion that there was any second plane. So where is the problem ?

What about these people:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html

Steve Anderson, Director of Communications, USA TODAY

A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye.

It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke.


Deb Anlauf

Anlauf was watching TV coverage of the Trade Center burning shortly before 9:30 a.m. when she decided to return to her 14th-floor room from another part of the hotel. Once in her room, she heard a "loud roar" and looked out the window to see what was going on.
"Suddenly I saw this plane right outside my window," Anlauf said during a telephone interview from her hotel room this morning. "You felt like you could touch it; it was that close. It was just incredible. "Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon. It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon). When it hit, the whole hotel shook."



Shills?

[bill smith]

Craig might understand the difference between

All of the eyewitnesses are shills.
Although some may be shills, most are just mistaken.



I share your desire.

Will
Just to be cartain that we are on the same page, I am only talking about the impact witnesses (all 100-plus of them) being 100% shills. Others may have seen or heard a plane in the air and assumed that it had hit the building. Those people are not included in the shill-equation.

[bill smith]

What about these people:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html





Shills?
With a certainty of 100%.

[Macgyver1968]

Your so funny Billy...I'm glad your around..keeps things entertaining. :)

[funk de fino]

With a certainty of 100%.

CIT disagreee and their star witness debunks their own wrong height claim.

nae luck.

[funk de fino]

Just to be cartain that we are on the same page, I am only talking about the impact witnesses (all 100-plus of them) being 100% shills. Others may have seen or heard a plane in the air and assumed that it had hit the building. Those people are not included in the shill-equation.

Liar, you were talking abour CIT witness. Craig has laid the smackdown on you.

[Dave Rogers]

He really said the following ? Wow. What did I get wrong then ?

It looks to me like he's saying you're a government shill and you're putting out disinformation to discredit him. That isn't what he actually said, of course, but by truther logic if I think he said it then it's true anyway.

Dave

[bill smith]

It looks to me like he's saying you're a government shill and you're putting out disinformation to discredit him. That isn't what he actually said, of course, but by truther logic if I think he said it then it's true anyway.

Dave

Well as you very well know Dave there are Shills all over so Craig is right to be watchful. I am on the side of the Angels though..

[bje]

But we know with 100% certainty that the plane flew on a trajectory that did not permit it to hit the Pentagon so we know that nobody saw it hit .

Apart from the fact that you don't know that, and neither does CIT, both CIT and Rob Balsamo claim the plane "flew over and away from the Pentagon."

Incredibly, they have never presented a single piece of evidence demonstrating that, despite being asked to do so for the last three years.

Can you tell us where Ranke and Balsamo are hiding that evidence, Bill, and why?

[Macgyver1968]

I am on the side of the Angels though..

...and fairies and pink unicorns! Let's all dance in fields of sugarplums, and run naked through the streams of truther Kool-aide! :)

[nicepants]

With a certainty of 100%.

If you are 100% certain that all of the impact eyewitnesses are shills, why aren't you presenting your evidence of same to a prosecutor who could indict them for being part of the conspiracy?

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe in most jurisdictions it is a crime to withhold evidence that would implicate someone for conspiracy to commit mass murder.

Also, CIT's own eyewitnesses claim that the plane hit the Pentagon...wouldn't that make them shills as well? (And if so, what does that do for their credibility?)

[bill smith]

Apart from the fact that you don't know that, and neither does CIT, both CIT and Rob Balsamo claim the plane "flew over and away from the Pentagon."

Incredibly, they have never presented a single piece of evidence demonstrating that, despite being asked to do so for the last three years.

Can you tell us where Ranke and Balsamo are hiding that evidence, Bill, and why?

Here is a hyperlink to the CIT video where all is explained and the government story is totally shredded for once and for all.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5207029&postcount=4

[bill smith]

If you are 100% certain that all of the impact eyewitnesses are shills, why aren't you presenting your evidence of same to a prosecutor who could indict them for being part of the conspiracy?

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe in most jurisdictions it is a crime to withhold evidence that would implicate someone for conspiracy to commit mass murder.

Also, CIT's own eyewitnesses claim that the plane hit the Pentagon...wouldn't that make them shills as well? (And if so, what does that do for their credibility?)

The fact of the matter is that any American who knows anything at all about 9/11 knows that it was an inside job. That does not mean that they are lining up to expose it though. Would you ? (in this case you don't need to answer).

Many people live in the forlorn hope that if you ignore it for long enough it will just go away. Well !....let me tell you.....it ain't gonna happen, especially in the rest of the world.

It's all very interesting though....uncharted territory etc.

[W.D.Clinger]

The fact of the matter is that any American who knows anything at all about 9/11 knows that it was an inside job.

If you and John Lear say so... :hypnotize

[bje]

Here is a hyperlink to the CIT video where all is explained and the government story is totally shredded for once and for all.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5207029&postcount=4

No, no, no, Bill. You're way behind. Did you forget what Craig actually said in his film?

Don't you remember when Craig ran away from his own claim?:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5034365&postcount=87

Get back to us with those eyewitness reports of a flyover or admit that CIT's story is totally shredded for once and for all. Remember, there were hundreds all around the Pentagon.

[jaydeehess]

With a certainty of 100%.

So allow me to condense your belief.

You believe;
that the 'evidence' of a flight path that differs from the commonly accepted one indicates that the plane flew over the Pentagon, despite absolutly no one actually witnessing sich a fly-over, and since in your mind this is true, then anyone saying that the aircraft hit the Pentagon is most certainly a shill, not mistaken, not duped, but a paid or coerced shill for the 'official story'.

Correct?

[bill smith]

No, no, no, Bill. You're way behind. Did you forget what Craig actually said in his film?

Don't you remember when Craig ran away from his own claim?:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5034365&postcount=87

Get back to us with those eyewitness reports of a flyover or admit that CIT's story is totally shredded for once and for all. Remember, there were hundreds all around the Pentagon.

You obviously don't get it. We know where the plane flew. It didn't fly into the Pentagon. Nothing else matters. That's just detail that will come out later. Understand now ?

[jhunter1163]

http://www.apfn.net/MESSAGEBOARD/6-27-03/discussion.cgi.98.html

Bill:

Here's a link to an e-mail from William Lagasse to Dick Eastman. Now, Lagasse is one of CIT's star witnesses. But in this e-mail, he sounds, shall we say, less than convinced of CIT's veracity.

[bje]

You obviously don't get it. We know where the plane flew. It didn't fly into the Pentagon. Nothing else matters. That's just detail that will come out later. Understand now ?

No, no, no, you still don't understand, Bill. That's evidence that would have come out on 9/11. Craig and Balsamo made a positive claim of evidence that the jet "flew over and away from the Pentagon." That shouldn't be that hard for you to understand.

Here is Craig's representation of the so-called "flyover":

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_159394a90a10347d02.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17388)

Big jet. Big explosion. See how easy that jet is to see? Guess how low Craig claims it was. Guess how loud it would have to be. Guess what the those hundreds of people on the freeways and bridges would say and report if it had happened. Did you miss that jet, Bill?

What happened to CIT, that Crack Investigation Team? Craig still can't back up his claims after all these years?

Give us the flyover eyewitnesses, Bill, and stop hiding them from us.

:whistling

[MIKILLINI]

Just to be cartain that we are on the same page, I am only talking about the impact witnesses (all 100-plus of them) being 100% shills. Others may have seen or heard a plane in the air and assumed that it had hit the building. Those people are not included in the shill-equation.

Just to be certain we are on the same page, your delusio...uh..perception is that impact witnesses are shills. Why is that Bill? How and why would that plane just disappear at the Pentagon without impacting it, but the passengers ended up in the Pentagon?

:popcorn2

[akama1]

The more I read Bills posts, the more I'm lead to believe that Bill is either 13 years old, Or the worlds most persistent troll.

You could equip a passenger plane, with missiles, fly low to the ground, then at the last minute to pull up and hit the pentagon with said missile, they fly at an even higher speed below the building level, but quietly, so no one sees the fleeing plane, then hide/payoff all the passengers on the plane, as well as pay shills to claim they saw the plane hit the building, and hope no one squeals

Or you could hijack a plane, and crash it into the same building.

I know which is easier, and seeing they already had crashed 2 planes into the world trade center, more likely.

[Bobert]

Craig can't post here..I believe he was banned. What was wrong,is that he doesn't believe EVERY person who says they saw the plane hit the Pentagon was a shill.

And Bill...if you such a supporter of his position, you should at least read what they believe.

IIRC Craig IS NOT BANNED but can post once he verifies his identity. The JREF at one point thought he and I were the same person.

[Bobert]

"Bill Smith". Its obvious you are a paid shill sent by the NWO to attempt to undermine the CIT patriots.
Can you please provide me with your IP address and full name...

[16.5]

IIRC Craig IS NOT BANNED but can post once he verifies his identity. The JREF at one point thought he and I were the same person.

Well, IIRC, he had a couple of socks?

In all seriousness, I would welcome his participation.

As long as he keeps Aldo well fed and away from the keyboard.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Well, IIRC, he had a couple of socks?

In all seriousness, I would welcome his participation.

As long as he keeps Aldo well fed and away from the keyboard.

Did Aldo have an account here? If he did, did he get banned for trying to eat James Randi's leg.

[triforcharity]

Ok..I'll bite, Bill. 100%? You mean all of the eyewitness at the pentegon saw what they claim? Funny.

No, 100% of the eyewitnesses thaat CIT took out of context, mislead, and quotemined, are correct in their lies.

FOLLOW ALONG MAC!!! DANG!! Thanks:D

[Macgyver1968]

Craig sent me this note also:

Mitch,


I just read the thread for the first time. For the record: I don't think bill smith is lying about our claims. He was simply under the wrong impression. Thanks for setting the record straight.


Craig



Just thought I'd pass that along.

[Brainache]

Did Aldo have an account here? If he did, did he get banned for trying to eat James Randi's leg.

He did have an account. I think he got banned for spam. That's right, he ate all the spam and he didn't leave any for the other Truthers, so he had to be banished.

I can't remember his username though... Something like: "big tough smart guy who doesn't believe the Government lies like all you stupid sheep" except a bit shorter.

[Hokulele]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=121281

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=121280

[Brainache]

Craig sent me this note also:



Just thought I'd pass that along.

I think the mods might call quoting a banned member a bit naughty Mac. I suggest you start grovelling right now. Throw yourself on the mercy of the Mods. Claim temporary CIT induced insanity. Claim provocation from BS. Or, if all else fails, blame Lisa.

[bill smith]

The more I read Bills posts, the more I'm lead to believe that Bill is either 13 years old, Or the worlds most persistent troll.

You could equip a passenger plane, with missiles, fly low to the ground, then at the last minute to pull up and hit the pentagon with said missile, they fly at an even higher speed below the building level, but quietly, so no one sees the fleeing plane, then hide/payoff all the passengers on the plane, as well as pay shills to claim they saw the plane hit the building, and hope no one squeals

Or you could hijack a plane, and crash it into the same building.

I know which is easier, and seeing they already had crashed 2 planes into the world trade center, more likely.

Sure....I agree with a lot of that. For that reason I have always thought that the Pentagon was a honeypot to generate and attract conspiracy theorists. This kind of implies that they knew they would be rumbled at some point which make me a little uneasy.

Much of 9/11 is the same. You don't imagine that the WTC7 and Shanksville stories are going to remain intact forever do you ? It's only a matter of time. We are only waiting for the penny to drop. What happens then we wil have to see.

I only became a little interested in the Pentagon when Craig seemed to bust it without any way back for the OCT.

So in short, 9/11 is busted wide open on all fronts as an inside job. The trouble is nobody knows what to do with the information. The button is there and blinking red but if nobody is willing to push it, then it might just as well not be there at all. Interesting times.

[beachnut]

... There are at least 10 of these witnesses including police officers. 100% confirmation. ...
They all say Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, making CIT liars and frauds and people who believe them gullible and knowledge free on the events of September 11 2001. CIT = 8 years of ignorance and lies.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Edwardpointsouth.gif
CIT witness points to Pentagon and said 77 passed near the tower behind him. OOPS

The passengers on Flight 77 were found in the Pentagon. CIT lies and you like to believe liars due to what major problem with knowledge and logic? Why do you get everything wrong about what happen September 11 2001?

104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

You spread the lies of few fringe nut cases who are failures who make money selling DVDs to those who have yet to gain knowledge to recognize delusions. You live in a delusional world. Why do you spread lies? Why are you fooled so easy?

[jhunter1163]

Bill:

No comment on Lagasse's e-mail to Eastman (post 65)?

[bill smith]

Bill:

No comment on Lagasse's e-mail to Eastman (post 65)?

Who knows ? Agent provocateur maybe ?

[bje]

So in short, 9/11 is busted wide open on all fronts as an inside job. The trouble is nobody knows what to do with the information. The button is there and blinking red but if nobody is willing to push it, then it might just as well not be there at all. Interesting times.

So much for demanding a "new investigation", eh?

Maybe Ranke needs more time to figure out how to turn a crash into a flyover.

[sylvan8798]

So in short, 9/11 is busted wide open on all fronts as an inside job. The trouble is nobody knows what to do with the information. The button is there and blinking red but if nobody is willing to push it, then it might just as well not be there at all. Interesting times.

Exactly what is it that keeps YOU from pushing that button, Bill Smith?

[Mr.Herbert]

Did Aldo have an account here? If he did, did he get banned for trying to eat James Randi's leg.

Sweet Jesus... I spit my coffee all over my monitor looking at your new avatar!!! :D:D:D

[jhunter1163]

But Bill, how can he be both an NOC witness and an agent provocateur? He specifically (and emphatically) says that the plane hit the building. He was one of the first guys on the scene. He picked up wreckage. It seems that the CIT boys are cherry-picking a bit.

[Fourbrick]

Interesting that Sgt Lagasse said that he was refuelling at the Citgo (Barracks K) gas station and said in his e-mail that " I was on the Starboard side
of the aircraft."

If he is correct and he was to the starboard of the aircraft, it was either on the course CIT say (flight path North of Citgo) or if it was on the South Flight path, then it must have been flying away from the Pentagon!

Or maybe it was just a slip of the tongue.

[TruthersLie]

wow... so you made this account 2 years ago posted twice, and then came back AFTER 2 years to continue with the wackiness

something smells bad here... maybe it is one of these socks

[HyJinX]

Interesting that Sgt Lagasse said that he was refuelling at the Citgo (Barracks K) gas station and said in his e-mail that " I was on the Starboard side
of the aircraft."

If he is correct and he was to the starboard of the aircraft, it was either on the course CIT say (flight path North of Citgo) or if it was on the South Flight path, then it must have been flying away from the Pentagon!

Or maybe it was just a slip of the tongue.

Once again, the physical evidence trumps eye-witness testimony. It's been said before. I'm sure it'll have to be said again.

[W.D.Clinger]

Interesting that Sgt Lagasse said that he was refuelling at the Citgo (Barracks K) gas station and said in his e-mail that " I was on the Starboard side of the aircraft."

Yes, I noticed that too. He says he saw the impact, however, so he can't mean the plane was flying away from the Pentagon.


Or maybe it was just a slip of the tongue.

It was in writing, and he has said something similar when speaking.

Maybe he doesn't know the meaning of "starboard". Maybe he's thinking the plane was to his right, and right means starboard. Maybe he's just mixed up or has forgotten.

A few months before 9/11, I broke an ankle. Today, the only way I can remember which ankle I broke in 2001 is to remember the asymmetric circumstances in which I had broken the opposite ankle almost 20 years earlier.

Will

[Fourbrick]

Quote

""wow... so you made this account 2 years ago posted twice, and then came back AFTER 2 years to continue with the wackiness

something smells bad here... maybe it is one of these socks"

Wow!...What has the above got to do with Lagasse's e-mail? Or is it just another ad hominem because you can't come up with a sensible comment?"

[Fourbrick]

Quote "Maybe he doesn't know the meaning of "starboard". Maybe he's thinking the plane was to his right, and right means starboard. Maybe he's just mixed up or has forgotten."

Will, Sgt Lagasse stated that he saw the plane fly from "left to right".

Sgt Brooks confirms what Lagasse said.

Maybe the two police officers were both mistaken.

Umm.. physical evidence trumps eye witnesses?....So physical evidence has never been planted? Try Global Research.ca and see C.I.A. and Lockerbie.

(I'm not allowed to enter URLs.)

[HyJinX]

Quote "Maybe he doesn't know the meaning of "starboard". Maybe he's thinking the plane was to his right, and right means starboard. Maybe he's just mixed up or has forgotten."

Will, Sgt Lagasse stated that he saw the plane fly from "left to right".

Sgt Brooks confirms what Lagasse said.

Maybe the two police officers were both mistaken.

Umm.. physical evidence trumps eye witnesses?....So physical evidence has never been planted? Try Global Research.ca and see C.I.A. and Lockerbie.

(I'm not allowed to enter URLs.)

Are you saying that physical evidence was planted?

[CurtC]

A few months before 9/11, I broke an ankle. Today, the only way I can remember which ankle I broke in 2001 is to remember the asymmetric circumstances in which I had broken the opposite ankle almost 20 years earlier.

That's funny - in 2001 I had to wear a medical boot for six weeks because of a tendon problem in one of my ankles, but I've tried since then and I can't remember which ankle it was.

[TruthersLie]

Quote

""wow... so you made this account 2 years ago posted twice, and then came back AFTER 2 years to continue with the wackiness

something smells bad here... maybe it is one of these socks"

Wow!...What has the above got to do with Lagasse's e-mail? Or is it just another ad hominem because you can't come up with a sensible comment?"

Ad hom? Never. I was just stating that for someone who made an account 2 years ago to suddenly reappear seems a bit off. AGain, it might be one of my socks. Who knows? Back to the point.

SO WHAT?
You have a witness who describes something a bit different than what actually happened (as is accepted by the common narrative.)

As a historian (which I am, as well as a college professor but that is OT), we often examine first hand accounts (primary sources) and we often find that individual recollections of events documented in primary sources can have differences in them. So we need to look at the "big picture" of the event, and of the witnesses statements. As such, the witness you are chosing to datamine comes out and says the JET struck the pentagon.

Now you can either
1. examine ALL the details of the event (that includes the radar track, the FDR, and all of the other eyewitnesses) and compare that with the eyewitness you are questioning... Which one has the vast majority of the data gone with? Oh the common narrative.

OR

2. Take an individual quote and say that "this is correct" and then ignore the rest of the data.

Can you do that? No you cannot. Is it possible to have someone misremember or misstate? sure it is. That is why police do not LIKE eyewitnesses over forensic evidence...

[TruthersLie]

Quote "Maybe he doesn't know the meaning of "starboard". Maybe he's thinking the plane was to his right, and right means starboard. Maybe he's just mixed up or has forgotten."

Will, Sgt Lagasse stated that he saw the plane fly from "left to right".

Sgt Brooks confirms what Lagasse said.

Maybe the two police officers were both mistaken.

Umm.. physical evidence trumps eye witnesses?....So physical evidence has never been planted? Try Global Research.ca and see C.I.A. and Lockerbie.

(I'm not allowed to enter URLs.)

Ah yes... the "evidence was planted" cannard.

So we have a vast conspiracy with tens of thousands of individuals who have NEVER spoken about it to ANYONE with multiple layers of coverup and compartimentalization

wouldn't it have just been easier to fly a jet into the pentagon? hmmm?

[dudalb]

Are you saying that physical evidence was planted?

No, he is just "suggesting"......
That's another favorite CT tactic:never actually say something outloud, but imply like hell.

[dudalb]

I have got to vent:
90% of the truthers are driven not by evidence but by ideology.They are extreme "Anti Establishment' types,largly driven by a resentment toward "authority" and live in a fantasy world where they are Neo in "The Matrix':brave rebels against an evil system. Anything interfering with the fantasy is rejected.
The other 10% are a combination of Left Wingers who hate the Bush adminsitration to the point where they will say ANYTHING to discredit it (and yes, some continue to do this despite the GOP being out of office, just like you still have Right Wingers who foam at the mouth at Bill Clinton) and those who will buy into any theory provided it is "edgy" "daring" and "contrarian".

[bill smith]

But Bill, how can he be both an NOC witness and an agent provocateur? He specifically (and emphatically) says that the plane hit the building. He was one of the first guys on the scene. He picked up wreckage. It seems that the CIT boys are cherry-picking a bit.

9/11 is full of what I call 'ambiguous' witnesses. This guy is one. Think of Tim Timmerman, the pilot who saw the wings going forward and the plane cartwheel into the building or Mike Walter who saw the wings bending back and going into the hole along with the fuselage as well as seeing the fuselage 'crumple like a tin can'. These guys are there to provide an element of confusion. Fortunately in this case the 'starboard' remark gives an exact location.

[bill smith]

Ah yes... the "evidence was planted" cannard.

So we have a vast conspiracy with tens of thousands of individuals who have NEVER spoken about it to ANYONE with multiple layers of coverup and compartimentalization

wouldn't it have just been easier to fly a jet into the pentagon? hmmm?

Not if you were deliberately starting a conspiracy theory.

[Mr.Herbert]

Quote "Maybe he doesn't know the meaning of "starboard". Maybe he's thinking the plane was to his right, and right means starboard. Maybe he's just mixed up or has forgotten."

Will, Sgt Lagasse stated that he saw the plane fly from "left to right".

Sgt Brooks confirms what Lagasse said.

Maybe the two police officers were both mistaken.

Umm.. physical evidence trumps eye witnesses?....So physical evidence has never been planted? Try Global Research.ca and see C.I.A. and Lockerbie.

(I'm not allowed to enter URLs.)

Hey FOURINCH,

Can you please learn to use the quote tags?

Thank you~ :)

[bill smith]

Once again, the physical evidence trumps eye-witness testimony. It's been said before. I'm sure it'll have to be said again.

Lol. You'll be saying that the lack of audio of explosions in the videos of 9/11 trumps the hundreds or thousands of eyewitness accounts next.

[tuc0]

Lol. You'll be saying that the lack of audio of explosions in the videos of 9/11 trumps the hundreds or thousands of eyewitness accounts next.

That's so obvious it shouldn't really need to be said. But when you're dealing with truthers using logic is futile and emaningless.

[HyJinX]

Lol. You'll be saying that the lack of audio of explosions in the videos of 9/11 trumps the hundreds or thousands of eyewitness accounts next.

I love it when truthers pwn themselves.

[jaydeehess]

Just to be certain we are on the same page, your delusio...uh..perception is that impact witnesses are shills. Why is that Bill? How and why would that plane just disappear at the Pentagon without impacting it, but the passengers ended up in the Pentagon?

:popcorn2

,, and thus it is time to once again to make my conspiracy suggestion to satisfy all questions about this event...........

The aircraft actualy flew UNDER the Pentagon dropping off a large explosive at the wall, and aircraft debris/body parts. It accomplsihed this feat by using alien technology discovered at Roswell that allows one to manipulate the vibration of quantum strings of an macro-object. In this way the plane slipped beyond the confines of these three spatial planes of existance and re-emerged in the Bermuda Triangle.

I continue to be surprised that such prominent TM members as Judy Wood, Reynolds, Nico Haupt , John Lear, or even good old Ace Baker, have not caught on to this yet.:boggled:

[jaydeehess]

But Bill, how can he be both an NOC witness and an agent provocateur? He specifically (and emphatically) says that the plane hit the building. He was one of the first guys on the scene. He picked up wreckage. It seems that the CIT boys are cherry-picking a bit.

Well let's see, was there anyone else in a prime position to see actual impact?
Yes, Boger was only a hundred feet or so from the aircraft' when it impacted. What does he state? That it HIT the Pentagon!

What does Craig conclude?
With no evidence whatsoever to back the contention up he claims that Boger had already ducked down and only inferred impact from the sounds.

Rather than accept what Boger says he saw happen only dozens of feet away, Craig choses instead to accept without question what Boger states e saw occuring a mile away as the aircraft came along Columbia Pike. Boger says it came from the direction of the Navy Annex. Of course in Craig's mind Boger cannot be mistaken about that but can be lieing about his actions as the plane neared.

[sylvan8798]

That's funny - in 2001 I had to wear a medical boot for six weeks because of a tendon problem in one of my ankles, but I've tried since then and I can't remember which ankle it was.

I sprained my right ankle in 1977, and if I think about it real hard, it still hurts, lol.

[dafydd]

No but I have audio that I can post from a guy who knows all there is to know about it. He confirms....

I'm a troll,fol-de rol.....

[dafydd]

Exactly what is it that keeps YOU from pushing that button, Bill Smith?

There is no button.

[TruthersLie]

Not if you were deliberately starting a conspiracy theory.

Hey BS.

You are so right.

Instead of just piloting jets into buildings (a much simplier plan) you involve 10's of thousands of people, make the plot much more complex and raise the chances of being caught, outted and then tried and convicted for mass murder and being a traitor.

Yup... that make soooooo much more sense.....

[TruthersLie]

Lol. You'll be saying that the lack of audio of explosions in the videos of 9/11 trumps the hundreds or thousands of eyewitness accounts next.

Please let me stundie this...

[Lupie]

Not if you were deliberately starting a conspiracy theory.

Finally, Bill Smith is speaking as an authority on a subject that he actually has real world experience in!

L.

[beachnut]

Umm.. physical evidence trumps eye witnesses?....
Yes.
If you can prove physical evidence was planted on September 11th, you will earn a Pulitzer Prize. But you will not be able to do that. Earning a Pulitzer Prize takes knowledge and sound judgment to expose a conspiracy, and all you have are moronic delusions of conspiracy theories. A big difference in exposing Watergate and the moronic conspiracy theories of 911TruthLies; the liars have no evidence.

Both Laggase and Brooks say Flight 77 hit the Pentagon so the failed CIT delusions are lies.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2470291&postcount=97 Interview with Chadwick B. Brooks, Pentagon Police Officer, who saw the hijacked plane clip lampposts and nose dive into the Pentagon. There was a loud bump and then chaos. He drove towards the crash site in his police cruiser. He didn't know which way to turn; it was like a movie. He was on duty until late that evening. He talks about how the plane hit the Pentagon, the ensuing chaos, ringing in his ears, heroes, passengers on the flight, and returning to work. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/afc911bib:@field(DOCID+@lit(afc911000150)) (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/afc911bib:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28afc911000150%29%29 )


Interview with William Lagasse, Pentagon Police Officer.
Summary: William Lagasse was refueling his police car when a jet flew past him so fast that its wind blasts knocked him into the vehicle. He then drove to the west side of the Pentagon, south of the impact. He describes the secondary explosions and smoke. Mr. Lagasse also discusses the search for and recovery of evidence, injured people, chaos, anxiety, Pentagon security, shock, and the disorientation of the survivors. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/h?ammem/afc911bib:@field(DOCID+@lit(afc911000152))))

[dudalb]

4.

Umm.. physical evidence trumps eye witnesses?...

Go ask any prosecutor in a DA's office about that one.

[beachnut]

Just to be cartain that we are on the same page, I am only talking about the impact witnesses (all 100-plus of them) being 100% shills. Others may have seen or heard a plane in the air and assumed that it had hit the building. Those people are not included in the shill-equation.
You prefer delusions over reality and truth.

Sean Boger - "... I just watched it hit the building,"

Sean is a CIT witness who saw 77 enter the Pentagon, he was next to the impact point and watched 77 fly into the Pentagon. You are calling him a liar with your failed delusions.

Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller - "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," Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said. "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building." dcmilitary.com November 16, 2001

[A W Smith]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2814163#post2814163

[stewieg]

Craig appears so desperate for attention from the truther community that he had one of his lackey's challenge another truther.

http://s1.zetaboards.com/artists4911truth2/topic/2390085/1/

Here's one of his gems.

The rules of this forum allow you 3-days to respond so if we don't hear from you after that I will accept that as a concession.

Like a little child on the school playground.

[jaydeehess]

I sprained my right ankle in 1977, and if I think about it real hard, it still hurts, lol.

At various times in my youth I sprained my right ankle, right shoulder and both thumbs.
My Mnemonic for recalling this is that "my right side was wronged" along with the other thumb.

If not for that I would have to ask for my old medical records to get it correct.:D

[beachnut]

Craig appears so desperate for attention from the truther community that he had one of his lackey's challenge another truther.

http://s1.zetaboards.com/artists4911truth2/topic/2390085/1/

Here's one of his gems.

The rules of this forum allow you 3-days to respond so if we don't hear from you after that I will accept that as a concession.

Like a little child on the school playground.

That is funny and the person challenged is not one of 9 members of the forum. 9 members all nut case conspiracy theorists. At this very moment over 10 percent of the forum members are waiting to post the truth on 911. "9 artists too dumb to figure out 911" should be the forum's title.

There are, by forum search only "5 members". The rest are admin or diplomats; killtown is a diplomat. wow
No topics have been posted in today

[stewieg]

That is funny and the person challenged is not one of 9 members of the forum. 9 members all nut case conspiracy theorists. At this very moment over 10 percent of the forum members are waiting to post the truth on 911. "9 artists too dumb to figure out 911" should be the forum's title.

There are, by forum search only "5 members". The rest are admin or diplomats; killtown is a diplomat. wow

Craig must be getting desperate for attention. After that farce of his a couple months ago he was probably expecting 60 Minutes to come banging on his door for an interview. Poor deluded little boy.

[Mr.Herbert]

Craig appears so desperate for attention from the truther community that he had one of his lackey's challenge another truther.

http://s1.zetaboards.com/artists4911truth2/topic/2390085/1/


Looks like Aldo signed up there!

Alpo-Buffet Slayer- CIT (http://s1.zetaboards.com/artists4911truth2/profile/853579/) Post #3 (http://s1.zetaboards.com/artists4911truth2/single/?p=170336&t=2390085)

Posts:1Group:MembersMember#11Joined:Oct 16, 2009
http://209.85.62.24/static/blank.gif Hello,

I decided that I would "flyover" to Sizzler tonight for dinner. Tomorrow I am taking a quick ride North of the Citgo so I can go to the Old Country Buffet for breakfast....

Anyone interested?

- Alpo

[Lupie]

Looks like Aldo signed up there!

Just quickly reading the post about him "joining" and then clicking the link, I didn't catch the "Alpo" part of the name at first. Humor with a little bit of a delay before delivery can be hilarious. I love it! Sizzler employees from coast to coast, tremble upon the mere mention of his name.

L.

[stateofgrace]

Umm.. physical evidence trumps eye witnesses?....So physical evidence has never been planted? Try Global Research.ca and see C.I.A. and Lockerbie.

(I'm not allowed to enter URLs.)

Go on then, do it. Do what no single truther before you as ever had the nerve to do and give us your narrative of the events at the Pentagon. Tell us all what you believe happened to Flight 77 and how the DNA of the passengers ended up inside this building. Explain away the lamp posts and explain away the witnesses. Start by explaining why anybody other than the most stupid person on the planet would think that it was a great idea to pretend that a hijacked plane was flown, in broad daylight, in front of everybody and anybody. Why would anybody dream up ,let alone approve the most convoluted, ridiculous plan in the history of ridiculous convoluted plans?

Of course you won't because you know and I know if you even attempted to do so, that little voice inside your head would be screaming "loony" over and over again. but please ignore that voice and lay it out for us all to see.

[16.5]

Oh Hai!

Did Agent Peter Pan and Agent Buffet finish destroying the truth movement yet??

[Macgyver1968]

Well...I hope I don't get in trouble with mods...but Craig asked me to pass this along:

Open letter to JREF:


Dear JREF,

I have provided my drivers license and two other pieces of scanned ID in order to have an account on your forum. I amassed a couple thousand posts and remained quite civil even though I was under constant personal attack. Eventually I was permanently suspended because I was accused of letting my partner Aldo use my account (he refused to provide a drivers license and additional pieces of ID to get an account) so I was suspended.

Just over a month ago I proposed to moderator Darat to simply let Aldo and I have our own separate accounts with our real names so there wouldn't be the issue of concern regarding us sharing accounts.

He said he would get back to me in a couple of days but never did and has ignored all of my follow up requests for a response.

Nevertheless you have felt compelled to attack the evidence we present and us personally in the comfort of knowing full well that we are not permitted to respond.

I publicly request that you campaign to allow us to post in your forum or that you sign up here to debate us direct.

TC/Dom is the Shanksville leg of CIT but you are only discussing the Pentagon.

Nothing you have said remotely begins to touch the broad scope of hard evidence we present.

Your retired leader Gravy refused to debate us and every one of you have cowardly refused to as well.

I challenge you to allow us in your forum so we can prove to you with hard evidence, sound logic, and pure scientific reasoning that 9/11 was an inside job.

Sincerely,
Craig Ranke

Iron sharpens iron...I say why not?

[Hokulele]

Mac, I think that is borderline posting on behalf of a banned member. This whole discussion was concluded over a year ago, and Craig's promise to not let the sockpuppetry happen again wasn't convincing. Considering how many times similar people have come back here to post after banning (Rob Balsamo, I am looking at you), I can't see why Craig should get any special priviledges.

As you saw yourself when you attempted to register and debate them, Craig cannot or will not respect such courtesy in return.

Please do not post any more appeals on his behalf. He doesn't deserve it.

[16.5]

Well...I hope I don't get in trouble with mods...but Craig asked me to pass this along:

Open letter to JREF:

Iron sharpens iron...I say why not?

Hmmm, lets give him a test, shall we?

Ask him to Explain why Probst's testimony does not destroy CIT's silly theory.

Difficulty: fallacy of personal "incredully" not permitted.

/brave of Peter Pan to wish to post here. He has his hands full with everybody else in the Truth movement hating his guts. That and Aldo's morbid obesity. Hi 16.5's Mom!

[stateofgrace]

Mac, I think that is borderline posting on behalf of a banned member. This whole discussion was concluded over a year ago, and Craig's promise to not let the sockpuppetry happen again wasn't convincing. Considering how many times similar people have come back here to post after banning (Rob Balsamo, I am looking at you), I can't see why Craig should get any special priviledges.

As you saw yourself when you attempted to register and debate them, Craig cannot or will not respect such courtesy in return.

Please do not post any more appeals on his behalf. He doesn't deserve it.

I agree. Mac, no more posting on behalf of this banned member, please.

[Macgyver1968]

Sorry Hok...I was just trying to pass along a courtesy..Craig was nice enough to answer my email, I thought I return the favor. I'm sorry if broke any rules. I just figured we could use someone else to debate, except a fake truther. :)

[UNLoVedRebel]

Interesting that Sgt Lagasse said that he was refuelling at the Citgo (Barracks K) gas station and said in his e-mail that " I was on the Starboard side
of the aircraft."

If he is correct and he was to the starboard of the aircraft, it was either on the course CIT say (flight path North of Citgo) or if it was on the South Flight path, then it must have been flying away from the Pentagon!

Or maybe it was just a slip of the tongue.

He also said the light poles were north of citgo, but we've been over this before.

[Hokulele]

Sorry Hok...I was just trying to pass along a courtesy..Craig was nice enough to answer my email, I thought I return the favor. I'm sorry if broke any rules. I just figured we could use someone else to debate, except a fake truther. :)


Ya, no worries. I didn't report it to the mods or anything, just wanted to give my opinion on it before Craig talked you into doing this on a regular basis because I think it is a bad idea.

And if it is simply debate you want, who is currently more valuable, Romo or Witten? ;)

[Macgyver1968]

Ya, no worries. I didn't report it to the mods or anything, just wanted to give my opinion on it before Craig talked you into doing this on a regular basis because I think it is a bad idea.

And if it is simply debate you want, who is currently more valuable, Romo or Witten? ;)

Witten...he consistency in a jar.

[Hokulele]

Witten...he consistency in a jar.


:D

[Bobert]

Hi craig, Dawson read your "dear JREF" letter:

http://www.google.com/m/search?site=images&source=mog&gl=us&q=dawson%20crying%20#ii=15

[R.Mackey]

Sorry Hok...I was just trying to pass along a courtesy..Craig was nice enough to answer my email, I thought I return the favor. I'm sorry if broke any rules. I just figured we could use someone else to debate, except a fake truther. :)

He's had that posted for him before.

I know you're relatively new here, but you might want to just search for posts by Lyte Trip and marvel. Craig has already had his chance, through over 100 pages of repetition and slander. There's absolutely no value to letting him back here to push it up to 200 pages. It's nothing but wasted bandwidth.

The "CIT" also posts as a collective, which is why they get banned so frequently. Craig has either advised or flat out posted for Tino ("TC329") and the not-really-mysterious TheLoneBedouin. And it's, again, more of the same.

If you want to talk to him, he's got his own lonely forum and he posts at Truther sites. He's not hard to find. Be my guest. As for myself, I much prefer beating my head against a stone wall to carrying on yet another variant of that discussion, and this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3966936#post3966936) is all I feel needs to be said regarding his ideas.

[AJM8125]

I am reasonably certain that the above is the stupidest hypothesis ever conceived for any purpose, including parody, intentional humor, or even stress tests of human perception in psychological experiments.

:D

Let that be posted in every CIT thread henceforth.

[bill smith]

:D

Let that be posted in every CIT thread henceforth.

CIT posts as a collective ? At times (like right now) I feel that I am walking through ankle-deep jref PM's. lol.

[Fourbrick]

Hey FOURINCH,

Can you please learn to use the quote tags?

Thank you~ :)


"Hey FOURINCH," How very droll. Jack Benny will never be dead whilst we have comedians like you around.

Re the quote tags, pleased to oblige.:)

[Fourbrick]

Are you saying that physical evidence was planted?

No, but could it have been?

[bill smith]

No, but could it have been?

Remember all those guys unrealistically holding the big blue box over their heads ? Could that have been to attract all the attention while stuff was planted ?

[triforcharity]

Maybe in your head....possibly.

[TruthersLie]

Remember all those guys unrealistically holding the big blue box over their heads ? Could that have been to attract all the aattention while stuff was planted ?

Wow... that is soooooo like 2004.

VtyzsSL3Gaw

try again BS, cus you are full of it.

[triforcharity]

Unrealisticly??? Come on. It was basically PVC pipes and plastic tarps. Der.

[16.5]

Remember all those guys unrealistically holding the big blue box over their heads ? Could that have been to attract all the attention while stuff was planted ?

HA! According to your CIT heroes one of the guys holding that blue box was one of their key witnesses, Terry Morin!!

You really suck at this truth game, Billy.

[TruthersLie]

No, but could it have been?

The short answer there is no the evidence could not have been planted. Not at the pentagon, shanksville or in NYC.

Could some parts of evidence have been fabricated? It is possible, but why? It wasn't needed.

To have a conspiracy of the 10's of thousands makes this the ultimate rube goldberg conspiracy machine. 10's of thousands of moving parts, with people supposedly planting evidence... but not one person has EVER spoken about it. That is amazing. The operational security is so great there has never been anything like it in the history of the world.

Bush and co are soooooooo smart they can orchestrate an event so convoluted and complex, but a bunch of college drop outs, pizza delivery boy, theologian talking out his ass, fired water tester, and a ethically challenged physicist can figure it out.... What will scoob and the gang fix next?

(and if they were that smart, they would have used FEWER pieces and gotten BETTER results which would have pointed DIRECTLY to iraq... easy to do.)

[bill smith]

Wow... that is soooooo like 2004.

VtyzsSL3Gaw

try again BS, cus you are full of it.

Whatever was being hidden from view was obviously very light. Some of the guys held it over their heads with one hand. Why so many guys ? Why so high ?

It looks like a very obvious distraction to me. From what though ? The hole ? Were the black boxes and the bits of fuselage planted at this time

[triforcharity]

Here is an intersting video I found. Kinda intersting to say the least.

0nBaU0vwP

[Fourbrick]

Yes.
If you can prove physical evidence was planted on September 11th, you will earn a Pulitzer Prize. But you will not be able to do that. Earning a Pulitzer Prize takes knowledge and sound judgment to expose a conspiracy, and all you have are moronic delusions of conspiracy theories. A big difference in exposing Watergate and the moronic conspiracy theories of 911TruthLies; the liars have no evidence.

Both Lagasse and Brooks say Flight 77 hit the Pentagon so the failed CIT delusions are lies.

No I certainly can't prove that the physical evidence was planted , but equally can you prove it wasn't? And where did I say it was. I was replying to a post which said that physical evidence trumped eyewitness acoounts.

Re Lagasse and Brooks, if Lagasse and Brooks said the aircraft hit the Pentagon, that may be what they believe, but they both were adamant that the aircraft flew North of Citgo. How do you explain the anomaly?

[TruthersLie]

Here is an intersting video I found. Kinda intersting to say the least.

0nBaU0vwP

tri... it is not posting

[16.5]

Re Lagasse and Brooks, if Lagasse and Brooks said the aircraft hit the Pentagon, that may be what they believe, but they both were adamant that the aircraft flew North of Citgo. How do you explain the anomaly?

Interesting question! I know how, we can remind Craig that he promised to download the torrents of all of his raw videos.

Why won't he do that? What is he afraid of?

Release the tapes Craig!

Release the belt Aldo!

[bill smith]

No I certainly can't prove that the physical evidence was planted , but equally can you prove it wasn't? And where did I say it was. I was replying to a post which said that physical evidence trumped eyewitness acoounts.

Re Lagasse and Brooks, if Lagasse and Brooks said the aircraft hit the Pentagon, that may be what they believe, but they both were adamant that the aircraft flew North of Citgo. How do you explain the anomaly?

What did the police guys say when it was pointed out that the plane could not have flown the Northern route and still knocked the lightpoles over ?

[16.5]

Whatever was being hidden from view was obviously very light. Some of the guys held it over their heads with one hand. Why so many guys ? Why so high ?

It loks like a very obvious distraction to me. From what though ? The hole ? Were the black boxes and the bits of fuselage planted at this time

There comes a time when questioning CIT's star witnesses becomes a betrayal to CIT.

Hee hee!

[Fourbrick]

He also said the light poles were north of citgo, but we've been over this before.

He stated in his videoed interview that he didn't see the light poles knocked down. Where and when did he say the light poles were North of Citgo?

[Mr.Herbert]

Poor Alpo didn't last very long in the Artists 4 911 truth

Posts:1Group:BannedMember#11Joined:Oct 17, 2009

[Fourbrick]

Interesting question! I know how, we can remind Craig that he promised to download the torrents of all of his raw videos.

Why won't he do that? What is he afraid of?

Release the tapes Craig!

Release the belt Aldo!

I agree entirely with your comments.

[triforcharity]

tri... it is not posting

Here, try this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nBaU0vwP-o&feature=player_embedded

Direct link.

[Mr.Herbert]

It's the Portugal Airshow... I can't embed it either!

[triforcharity]

And yet, they claim an aircraft that size cannot possibly fly that low. Looks to be no more than about 50 feet off the ground. Airbus something or other.

[Fourbrick]

Here, try this.



Direct link.

What's the airspeed of the aircraft in the video then, TRI? I couldn't work it out.;)

(I'm not allowed to sumit URL's yet. Caused by my lack of posts over the past hundred years, or summat.)

[Fourbrick]

And yet, they claim an aircraft that size cannot possibly fly that low. Looks to be no more than about 50 feet off the ground. Airbus something or other.

If it can't fly that low, how the hell does it land?

[bill smith]

How important are the lightpoles anyway ? Could the OCT just dump the lightpoles and say the Northern route AND the impact are correct ?

[W.D.Clinger]

How important are the lightpoles anyway ? Could the OCT just dump the lightpoles and say the Northern route AND the impact are correct ?

Anybody can say anything, as you continue to remind us.

Will

[bill smith]

Anybody can say anything, as you continue to remind us.

Will

I call it 'shaking down'. If both cops say they saw the plane on the North Side and they both say they saw the impact then the lightpoles become important as verification. Because if the lightpoles are essential but they couldn't have been hit if the plane came on the Northerly Route (as ALL the witnesses say) then....what ?

[George152]

No I certainly can't prove that the physical evidence was planted , but equally can you prove it wasn't? And where did I say it was. I was replying to a post which said that physical evidence trumped eyewitness acoounts.

Re Lagasse and Brooks, if Lagasse and Brooks said the aircraft hit the Pentagon, that may be what they believe, but they both were adamant that the aircraft flew North of Citgo. How do you explain the anomaly?

They were wrong!
It happens

[bje]

I call it 'shaking down'. If both cops say they saw the plane on the North Side and they both say they saw the impact then the lightpoles become important as verification. Because if the lightpoles are essential but they couldn't have been hit if the plane came on the Northerly Route (as ALL the witnesses say) then....what ?

How's your list of "flyover" eyewitnesses coming, Bill? Need another 8 years?

Here's a reminder: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread378783/pg50#pid4823797

[jhunter1163]

Release the belt Aldo!

You owe me for six bottles of brain bleach.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Go ask any prosecutor in a DA's office about that one.


Pssh! Those courts are government-run. Most truthers are only concerned with the court of public opinion

Wow... that is soooooo like 2004.


Heh. Huey Lewis & the News started playing in my head. "Back in ti-ee-ime!"

[Bobert]

Not much from the CIT CULT these days.
Well Craig was on some Australian radio show which I am sure bad the NWO shaking in its boots!
Wasn't the CIT CULT trying to get their poor deluded followers. <cough> Bill Smith <cough> to send harassing emails to public officials?

[MIKILLINI]

Remember all those guys unrealistically holding the big blue box over their heads ? Could that have been to attract all the attention while stuff was planted ?

This is a truther question equivalent to making an assumption of finding a corner in a round room.

One of the CIT's key witnesses, Terry Morin, helped carry the tarp covered box.

Great research on attempting to prove your suspicions, Bill. This removes any doubt about how much effort you have given to make a case.:rolleyes:

ETA: 16.5 beat me to it.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Great research on attempting to prove your suspicions, Bill. This removes any doubt about how much effort you have given to make a case.:rolleyes:


I also like how he seriously considered the possibility that everyone at the scene was miraculously distracted by a half-dozen guys carrying a big, blue "box".

Everyone, of course, except the people allegedly tasked with scurrying all over the Pentagon lawn, carrying, and then inconspicuously dropping conspicuously large pieces of debris.

I imagine the theme from the Benny Hill show was also playing, just to enhance the comedic effect. :rolleyes:

MK6TXMsvgQg

[apathoid]

What's the airspeed of the aircraft in the video then, TRI? I couldn't work it out.;)

(I'm not allowed to sumit URL's yet. Caused by my lack of posts over the past hundred years, or summat.)


FWIW, the uploader of the original video said then pass was 700 km/h per the airshow announcer.

HD version of the fly-by here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ6t_R-FTUk&fmt=22).

[Pinch]

Lets face it Myriad....if the plane flew on the North side of the Citgo gas station as 100% of their own HAND PICKED and proprietary witnesses who's testimony they cherry picked, wordsmithed, gerrymandered and outright lied about say it did then it definately didn't hit the Pentagon.

There I fixed it for ya.

Seriously. You need to be a bit more erudite with the way you use the language, dude. People will think your...like...not all there.

[sylvan8798]

What a ridiculous excuse for "proof". Did you guys know the plane impacted literally a centimeter off the ground? In that consistent at all with this video? It appears to me like this plane is flying at least 20 feet above the ground which does not compare to the Pentagon crash. What a joke it is to continue to defend the official explanation of 9/11. Did I mention no picture or video to date has shown the plane?
http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=0nBaU0vwP-o&page=2
A centimeter? Really? They measured that?

Why anyone with half a brain would associate themselves with a movement made up of so many single-digit IQ'ers is beyond me.:boggled:

[Fourbrick]

They were wrong!
It happens

Well thanks for sorting that out for me, George.

Now, perhaps you can also tell us what happened to the Mary Celeste?

[CptColumbo]

Well thanks for sorting that out for me, George.

Now, perhaps you can also tell us what happened to the Mary Celeste?
Daleks. I saw it in a video.

[TruthersLie]

cptcolumbo.

no
No
NO

it was MOTHRA.
shesh

[George152]

Well thanks for sorting that out for me, George.

Now, perhaps you can also tell us what happened to the Mary Celeste?

Okay.
Ergot in the rye bread.

Once again. It happens

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Why hasn't the Truth Movement or Truthers conducted any tests to prove that the Conspiracy Theories right?

A: Because they lack logic and reason
B: Because they never really did anything in 8 years?
C: Because they're too lazy and make up stories to fit their delusional minds
D: All of the above

I think I'll got with D.

[Hokulele]

Why hasn't the Truth Movement or Truthers conducted any tests to prove that the Conspiracy Theories right?

A: Because they lack logic and reason
B: Because they never really did anything in 8 years?
C: Because they're too lazy and make up stories to fit their delusional minds
D: All of the above

I think I'll got with D.


They have. They just didn't get the results they expected.

http://911truthburn.blogspot.com/2007/09/updates-sept-4-2007.html

[UNLoVedRebel]

It's so obvious who these CIT cheerleaders are. No one believes their nonsense except for Craig and his six personalities.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

They have. They just didn't get the results they expected.

http://911truthburn.blogspot.com/2007/09/updates-sept-4-2007.html

Oh yeah, I forgot they tested thermite but the results was just like a fireworks show.

Thanks for reminding me Hokulele.