PDA

View Full Version : Flight 77 flight path


Pages : [1] 2 3

tj15
8th November 2009, 02:48 PM
Have officer LaGasse and others been debunked in their recollection of the flight path of flight 77? He was at the Citco gas station and said the airplane was north of the station.

Sorry if this has been discussed already.

R.Mackey
8th November 2009, 02:57 PM
It's been discussed over literally a thousand pages of the Forum.

Yes, he has been debunked. This tiny part of his recollection (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2472903#post2472903) conflicts with the RADAR records of the flight, the FDR records, the damage path, and a majority of eyewitnesses -- including Mr. Lagasse himself, who saw the impact. The fine details are also inconsistent in several other respects (as pointed out even by other truthers (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2009/07/william-lagasse-these-poles-were-not.html)). Furthermore, he does not support (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2473135#post2473135) the conspiracy theories himself.

Bottom line, he is mistaken about the aircraft's precise location prior to impact. It happens. This is only interesting if you're desperate for an "anomaly" to bolster a preconceived opinion.

tj15
8th November 2009, 03:43 PM
It's been discussed over literally a thousand pages of the Forum.

Yes, he has been debunked. This tiny part of his recollection (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2472903#post2472903) conflicts with the RADAR records of the flight, the FDR records, the damage path, and a majority of eyewitnesses -- including Mr. Lagasse himself, who saw the impact. The fine details are also inconsistent in several other respects (as pointed out even by other truthers (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2009/07/william-lagasse-these-poles-were-not.html)). Furthermore, he does not support (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2473135#post2473135) the conspiracy theories himself.

Bottom line, he is mistaken about the aircraft's precise location prior to impact. It happens. This is only interesting if you're desperate for an "anomaly" to bolster a preconceived opinion.
LaGasse Sounds pretty confident in this interview...

http://www.video4viet.com/watchvideo.html?id=j5FhQc-LJ-o&title=National+Security+Alert+-+Sensitive+Information

tj15
8th November 2009, 03:47 PM
There are about 8 people in that video that think the plane was north of citco. How are they all mistaken?

This is actually the first time I have looked into this flight path stuff, so my questions may be stupid.

Brattus
8th November 2009, 04:08 PM
Not only that! But I think you'll find with a little research that all 8 of those people have died strange and mysterious deaths.
As soon as they started talking about the grassy knoll and seeing Oswald helping elderly people cross the street instead of being inside the book depository they just didn't stand a chance!

beachnut
8th November 2009, 04:21 PM
There are about 8 people in that video that think the plane was north of citco. How are they all mistaken?

This is actually the first time I have looked into this flight path stuff, so my questions may be stupid.
He agrees Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon.

The real interviews are right after 911, not years later.


http://memory.loc.gov/learn/collecti...1/history.html (http://memory.loc.gov/learn/collections/sept11/history.html)

CIT witnesses contradicting every thing they imply.

American Airlines Flight 77 from Washington-Dulles International Airport crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m. William Lagasse, Chadwick Brooks, and Donald Brennan were Pentagon police officers on duty at the time of the attack. Lagasse was in the process of refueling his police car when the American Airliner flew past him so low that its wind blast knocked him into his vehicle. In an interview conducted in December 2001 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/afc911bib:@field(DOCID+@lit(afc911000152))) , Lagasse described the secondary explosions and the search and recovery of injured Pentagon personnel. Brooks saw the hijacked plane clip lampposts and nosedive into the Pentagon and described the ensuing scenes of chaos in his interview (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/afc911bib:@field(DOCID+@lit(afc911000150))), taped November 25, 2001.

Mr.Herbert
8th November 2009, 04:26 PM
There are about 8 people in that video that think the plane was north of citco. How are they all mistaken?

This is actually the first time I have looked into this flight path stuff, so my questions may be stupid.

There are too many threads dedicated to Ranke and Alpo... here are a few for you:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=121797
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=149375
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=137951
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=108837
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=134678
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=134505
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=132361
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=131556
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=131236
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=126876

If that isn't enough...there are more here:
http://forums.randi.org/tags.php?tag=cit

Myriad
8th November 2009, 04:37 PM
There are about 8 people in that video that think the plane was north of citco. How are they all mistaken?


Because people are not very good at judging distances.

Have you ever watched a football game, either live or on TV, and been mistaken about whether a field goal kick was good -- that is, whether the ball went "north" or "south" of one of the goal post uprights?

If you're looking at the goal post from the side (a seat in line with the back of the end zone), you can tell exactly when the ball crosses the plane of the goal post, but it's hard to tell whether it's inside or outside the uprights, especially if it's above the top of the uprights at the time. Because that requires judging the exact distance of the ball compared with the distances of the two uprights. That's difficult.

If you're looking at the goal posts from end on (a seat in line with the length of the field), you can easily tell whether the ball is between the uprights at any given moment, but it's hard to tell when it crosses the plane of the goal post. Because again, that requires judging its exact distance from you. So if the ball is moving left to right or right to left, you might not be able to tell whether it was between the uprights at the critical moment when it crossed the plane of the goal post, because it's hard to tell when that moment occurs.

If you're looking from some other angle, then you have a combination of both problems.

The only angle from which you can be sure to be able to tell is standing under the uprights looking directly upward, as the referees do. (Being directly above the uprights looking downward would also work.)

For the case of flight 77, the same problem applies. Nearly every witness was in a position that requires the witness to judge the distance of the plane in order to tell if it passed north or south of the Citgo. The only exceptions are the people who were actually at the Citgo, and who therefore could easily perceive both when it passed, and on what side it passed on, without having to judge its exact distance to do so. (They're like the referees standing right under the uprights.) That would include Lagasse, but unfortunately his recall of the event including his own position at the time has been shown to be imperfect.

Respectfully,
Myriad

R.Mackey
8th November 2009, 04:41 PM
There are about 8 people in that video that think the plane was north of citco. How are they all mistaken?

This is actually the first time I have looked into this flight path stuff, so my questions may be stupid.

Lagasse also believes the light poles were "North of the CITGO." Read his interview.

How are eight people out of thousands mistaken, when interviewed years after the fact by biased individuals? Happens ALL THE TIME.

There have been various ideas put forth as to why. One is that the shadow of the aircraft would have been considerably west of the plane, as the crash happened in the morning. Frankly given that the plane would have been in view for only seconds, and struck without warning, I'm surprised anyone got it right -- but many did, identifying the correct flight path and even correct aircraft.

Another, I've always wondered why the CITheads refer to these alternate paths as "North" and "South" relative to the gas station, rather than "East" and "West." Try asking random people where True North is, and see how close they are. Ten degrees? Twenty? Some folks have no clue at all.

And, finally, it wouldn't matter if a million people claimed to have seen this. The physical evidence is conclusive. That's all there is to it.

This may be the single most discussed, and stupidest (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3966936#post3966936), topic tackled in the history of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories subforum. Not because they are popular, mind you, merely because of the sheer virulence of the few proponents. To describe them as evangelical in their beliefs is a gross understatement.

Don't be an enabler. Reject false hypotheses and move on. There's nothing to see here.

beachnut
8th November 2009, 05:12 PM
There are about 8 people in that video that think the plane was north of citco. How are they all mistaken?

This is actually the first time I have looked into this flight path stuff, so my questions may be stupid.
All the witnesses point to the south flight path. CIT is the personification of dirt dumb.

Interview with William Lagasse, Fredericksburg, Virginia, December 4, 2001

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/afc911bib:@field(DOCID+@lit(afc911000152))

Interview with Chadwick B. Brooks, Stephens City, Virginia, November 25, 2001

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/afc911bib:@field(DOCID+@lit(afc911000150))

tj15
8th November 2009, 05:24 PM
Because people are not very good at judging distances.

Have you ever watched a football game, either live or on TV, and been mistaken about whether a field goal kick was good -- that is, whether the ball went "north" or "south" of one of the goal post uprights?

If you're looking at the goal post from the side (a seat in line with the back of the end zone), you can tell exactly when the ball crosses the plane of the goal post, but it's hard to tell whether it's inside or outside the uprights, especially if it's above the top of the uprights at the time. Because that requires judging the exact distance of the ball compared with the distances of the two uprights. That's difficult.

If you're looking at the goal posts from end on (a seat in line with the length of the field), you can easily tell whether the ball is between the uprights at any given moment, but it's hard to tell when it crosses the plane of the goal post. Because again, that requires judging its exact distance from you. So if the ball is moving left to right or right to left, you might not be able to tell whether it was between the uprights at the critical moment when it crossed the plane of the goal post, because it's hard to tell when that moment occurs.

If you're looking from some other angle, then you have a combination of both problems.

The only angle from which you can be sure to be able to tell is standing under the uprights looking directly upward, as the referees do. (Being directly above the uprights looking downward would also work.)

For the case of flight 77, the same problem applies. Nearly every witness was in a position that requires the witness to judge the distance of the plane in order to tell if it passed north or south of the Citgo. The only exceptions are the people who were actually at the Citgo, and who therefore could easily perceive both when it passed, and on what side it passed on, without having to judge its exact distance to do so. (They're like the referees standing right under the uprights.) That would include Lagasse, but unfortunately his recall of the event including his own position at the time has been shown to be imperfect.

Respectfully,
Myriad
LaGasse claims he was at the citgo gas station, correct?

He said he was looking "north" (the opposite side of the gas station that the official story puts the flight path). He would have had to have been mistaken in which direction he was looking, wouldn't he? According to the official story and according to the direction LaGasse was looking, LaGasse should not have seen the airplane at all... Meaning he would have to have eyes in the back of his head to see the plane.

Note: I don't agree that this proves anything... I'm just trying to see it what accounts for this apparent discrepancy...

tj15
8th November 2009, 06:19 PM
Does anyone have a list of eyewitnesses that support the official flight path of flight 77? Did any of the witnesses see the light poles knocked down?

TruthersLie
8th November 2009, 06:20 PM
LaGasse claims he was at the citgo gas station, correct?

He said he was looking "north" (the opposite side of the gas station that the official story puts the flight path). He would have had to have been mistaken in which direction he was looking, wouldn't he? According to the official story and according to the direction LaGasse was looking, LaGasse should not have seen the airplane at all... Meaning he would have to have eyes in the back of his head to see the plane.

Note: I don't agree that this proves anything... I'm just trying to see it what accounts for this apparent discrepancy...

You see, you have outted yourself in this post.
what official story? There is NO "official" story. That is a phrase of a twoof.

This has been discussed to death... what is highly amusing is that the CIT folks go back to witnesses YEARS after the event and ask them to tell them the details. I have difficulty remembering what I had for lunch last week... but you want me to remember exactly where I was standing, where I was looking and specifically waht I saw YEARS ago? forget about it.

BigAl
8th November 2009, 06:26 PM
Does anyone have a list of eyewitnesses that support the official flight path of flight 77? Did any of the witnesses see the light poles knocked down?


Put any claim made by anyone in the context of all the evidence we have; the entire aircraft and all the bodies found inside the Pentagon, plus radar data, black boxes, and much more.

Read Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11
150 interviews with participants and eye-witnesses

105 eyewitnesses
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/PentWitnesses.xls

Statements from 100 (est) eye witnesses, all cited to full text
sources
http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/witness.html

tj15
8th November 2009, 06:32 PM
You see, you have outted yourself in this post.
what official story? There is NO "official" story. That is a phrase of a twoof.

This has been discussed to death... what is highly amusing is that the CIT folks go back to witnesses YEARS after the event and ask them to tell them the details. I have difficulty remembering what I had for lunch last week... but you want me to remember exactly where I was standing, where I was looking and specifically waht I saw YEARS ago? forget about it.

Call me a truther all you want. I'm not.

tj15
8th November 2009, 06:34 PM
Put any claim made by anyone in the context of all the evidence we have; the entire aircraft and all the bodies found inside the Pentagon, plus radar data, black boxes, and much more.

Read Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11
150 interviews with participants and eye-witnesses

105 eyewitnesses
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/PentWitnesses.xls

Statements from 100 (est) eye witnesses, all cited to full text
sources
http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/witness.html

I can't view the links for some reason... Did any witnesses see the light poles get hit?

A W Smith
8th November 2009, 06:35 PM
LaGasse claims he was at the citgo gas station, correct?

He said he was looking "north" (the opposite side of the gas station that the official story puts the flight path). He would have had to have been mistaken in which direction he was looking, wouldn't he? According to the official story and according to the direction LaGasse was looking, LaGasse should not have seen the airplane at all... Meaning he would have to have eyes in the back of his head to see the plane.

Note: I don't agree that this proves anything... I'm just trying to see it what accounts for this apparent discrepancy...

when interviewed and filmed by ranke years later doing a re-enactment. Lagasse was at the wrong gas pump. Ranke had to correct him. Because the citgo security cam video shows him at another pump. Ranke would have taken his testimony at face value had he been unaware of the citgo security cam video which shows him fueling his patrol car. And he wasnt "blown" back into his patrol car. He ducked into his patrol car in fear.


witnesses
http://web.archive.org/web/20070923181310/http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/witness.html

light pole witnesses
http://web.archive.org/web/20070701221037/eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/lpa1.html

tj15
8th November 2009, 06:40 PM
when interviewed and filmed by ranke years later doing a re-enactment. Lagasse was at the wrong gas pump. Ranke had to correct him. Because the citgo security cam video shows him at another pump. Ranke would have taken his testimony at face value had he been unaware of the citgo security cam video which shows him fueling his patrol car. And he wasnt "blown" back into his patrol car. He ducked into his patrol car in fear.


witnesses
http://web.archive.org/web/20070923181310/http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/witness.html

light pole witnesses
http://web.archive.org/web/20070701221037/eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/lpa1.html
Thanks for the link about the light pole witnesses.

TruthersLie
8th November 2009, 06:47 PM
Call me a truther all you want. I'm not.

You sure are JAQing off like a twoof. You sure are failing to use the search function like a twoof.

If you aren't, then stop JAQing off like one.

You ignore the search function, and are given answers and links to the answers for your questions and then just try to spin them...

walks like a twoof, sounds like a twoof, acts like a twoof... it probably is a twoof.

TruthersLie
8th November 2009, 06:50 PM
I can't view the links for some reason... Did any witnesses see the light poles get hit?

Why don't you look it up yourself?

The search function, and GOOGLE are your friend.

Here let me google that for you
http://tinyurl.com/yhnxxoj

take a look at the top 3... 9/11 debunker has your quotes

DGM
8th November 2009, 06:52 PM
Call me a truther all you want. I'm not.
The fact that the plane and all it's occupants were found inside the building would make this whole "flight path" argument moot. Would it not?

tj15
8th November 2009, 06:52 PM
You sure are JAQing off like a twoof. You sure are failing to use the search function like a twoof.

If you aren't, then stop JAQing off like one.

You ignore the search function, and are given answers and links to the answers for your questions and then just try to spin them...

walks like a twoof, sounds like a twoof, acts like a twoof... it probably is a twoof.

Like I said, call me whatever you want. I don't care. I know what I am.

I would like to thank all the posters here who have provided links and answers to my questions.

Audible Click
8th November 2009, 06:55 PM
You sure are JAQing off like a twoof. You sure are failing to use the search function like a twoof.

If you aren't, then stop JAQing off like one.

You ignore the search function, and are given answers and links to the answers for your questions and then just try to spin them...

walks like a twoof, sounds like a twoof, acts like a twoof... it probably is a twoof.

My assement too. Same modality as we've seen time and time again.

tj15
8th November 2009, 06:56 PM
The fact that the plane and all it's occupants were found inside the building would make this whole "flight path" argument moot. Would it not?
I'm simply trying to debunk this theory about eyewitnesses seeing a plane on the north side of the citgo gas station. That's all... And somehow that makes me a truther.

Note that I never said that I think something other than the official story (I don't care if it sounds like truther language) happened.

Audible Click
8th November 2009, 06:59 PM
It's your method. There is a search function on this board yet you come here wanting people to spoon feed the liinks to you.

tj15
8th November 2009, 07:00 PM
It's your method. There is a search function on this board yet you come here wanting people to spoon feed the liinks to you.
Then ignore my posts.

TruthersLie
8th November 2009, 07:02 PM
see.. there is no such thing as the "official story."

There is a shared narrative of which tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands) witnessed live and in person, which was shaped by the billions who have now seen the footage.

this shared narrative was shaped by the investigations which followed (the dozen or so), which supplied overwhelming evidence that 19 wacko's hijacked the 4 jets and flew them into 3 buildings and a field.

Try using the search function... it has most of what you are after. Or use Google and then put in the magic word after the twoof.... Debunked and look at what comes up.

DGM
8th November 2009, 07:03 PM
I'm simply trying to debunk this theory about eyewitnesses seeing a plane on the north side of the citgo gas station. That's all... And somehow that makes me a truther.

Note that I never said that I think something other than the official story (I don't care if it sounds like truther language) happened.
I never claimed you were a "truther". I was just stating a simple fact that makes their whole argument (and thus your question) pointless. The entire body of physical evidence negates the (notoriously unreliable) memories of a few people. Do you see what I mean?

tj15
8th November 2009, 07:04 PM
see.. there is no such thing as the "official story."

There is a shared narrative of which tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands) witnessed live and in person, which was shaped by the billions who have now seen the footage.

this shared narrative was shaped by the investigations which followed (the dozen or so), which supplied overwhelming evidence that 19 wacko's hijacked the 4 jets and flew them into 3 buildings and a field.

Try using the search function... it has most of what you are after. Or use Google and then put in the magic word after the twoof.... Debunked and look at what comes up.
I know. And I agree with what I call the "official story." I'm just looking for a debunking of this flight 77 flight path theory. Don't respond to my post if it is in the search function.

tj15
8th November 2009, 07:07 PM
I never claimed you were a "truther". I was just stating a simple fact that makes their whole argument (and thus your question) pointless. The entire body of physical evidence negates the (notoriously unreliable) memories of a few people. Do you see what I mean?
I didn't mean that you called me a truther... Others on this thread think I am. Sorry for the confusion.

And yes, I agree that question is pointless when looking at the physical evidence. I'm just trying to get a further understanding of how those witnesses could have been mistaken on the path of flight 77.

defaultdotxbe
8th November 2009, 07:09 PM
I'm simply trying to debunk this theory about eyewitnesses seeing a plane on the north side of the citgo gas station. That's all... And somehow that makes me a truther.
you dont seem to be as interested in reading the links people give you as you are in asking "well how could they all the be mistaken" so that tends to set off some BS alarms around here, plus there have been a lot of people coming here asking to debunk something, or "just asking questions" (JAQing) and then turned out to be full-on truthers with all their opions decided before registering, so folks here can be suspicious

FWIW i dont think you are a truther, youve been registered over a year and a half, and thats a pretty long latent period for a troll, im just trying to explain why others have doubts

on topic: everything thats been posted is pretty much all you need (more in fact) and yes, people can be mistaken even to the point of which direction they were looking, especially when interviewed by people who have already decided what direction they were looking

also, we dont know how edited the interviews are, craig and aldo were supposed to release the "researchers edition" of their little video, with uncut interviews, years ago, i cant imagine why they havent :rolleyes:

DGM
8th November 2009, 07:14 PM
I didn't mean that you called me a truther... Others on this thread think I am. Sorry for the confusion.

And yes, I agree that question is pointless when looking at the physical evidence. I'm just trying to get a further understanding of how those witnesses could have been mistaken on the path of flight 77.
No problem!

If you interview a bunch of people and only publish the interviews that support your view you can (attempt) make a case for anything. The human recollection is an unreliable thing that is subject to sway (for lack of a better word) by the interviewer. That's why real investigators only use eye witnesses to bolster physical evidence, not the other way around.

tj15
8th November 2009, 07:14 PM
you dont seem to be as interested in reading the links people give you as you are in asking "well how could they all the be mistaken" so that tends to set off some BS alarms around here, plus there have been a lot of people coming here asking to debunk something, or "just asking questions" (JAQing) and then turned out to be full-on truthers with all their opions decided before registering, so folks here can be suspicious

FWIW i dont think you are a truther, youve been registered over a year and a half, and thats a pretty long latent period for a troll, im just trying to explain why others have doubts

on topic: everything thats been posted is pretty much all you need (more in fact) and yes, people can be mistaken even to the point of which direction they were looking, especially when interviewed by people who have already decided what direction they were looking

also, we dont know how edited the interviews are, craig and aldo were supposed to release the "researchers edition" of their little video, with uncut interviews, years ago, i cant imagine why they havent :rolleyes:
I have been looking into 9/11 off and on for a little while now and I usually come here with questions I might have.

I think I have 2 other threads that I started recently... Check those out. I'm not a truther.

16.5
8th November 2009, 07:23 PM
I have been looking into 9/11 off and on for a little while now and I usually come here with questions I might have.

I think I have 2 other threads that I started recently... Check those out. I'm not a truther.

Yet, curiously you seem to focus on the some of the most ridiculous truther theories that are out there, without applying any critical thinking skills to them before you bring them here.

R.Mackey
8th November 2009, 07:24 PM
If you interview a bunch of people and only publish the interviews that support your view you can (attempt) make a case for anything. The human recollection is an unreliable thing that is subject to sway (for lack of a better word) by the interviewer. That's why real investigators only use eye witnesses to bolster physical evidence, not the other way around.

Exactly.

Approximately 2% +/- 1.4% of people in the USA believe (http://www.viewzone.com/abduct.html) they have been abducted by aliens personally.

Compared to that, approximately 7% of witnesses misunderstanding / misremembering the actual track of the aircraft is not even faintly remarkable.

This is what passes for "evidence" to the Truthers. They really, truly have absolutely nothing.

A W Smith
8th November 2009, 07:26 PM
Thanks for the link about the light pole witnesses.

and click on the "more witnesses' link
http://web.archive.org/web/20040914075715/www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/pole_reports.htm

bottom of that page is this link to "full witness compendium'

http://web.archive.org/web/20021216080026/www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/witnesses.html

tj15
8th November 2009, 07:32 PM
Yet, curiously you seem to focus on the some of the most ridiculous truther theories that are out there, without applying any critical thinking skills to them before you bring them here.

Like what? The last three threads I created: One was about the Barbara Olsen call. One was a challenge to truthers here to produce a video with audio of explosions. And this thread.

I thought the two threads I had questions in were valid. And never did I ever agree with the truther side of the questions I asked.

tsig
8th November 2009, 07:34 PM
I didn't mean that you called me a truther... Others on this thread think I am. Sorry for the confusion.

And yes, I agree that question is pointless when looking at the physical evidence. I'm just trying to get a further understanding of how those witnesses could have been mistaken on the path of flight 77.

Because they're human not impersonal recording machines.

DGM
8th November 2009, 07:43 PM
Because they're human not impersonal recording machines.
How true!
One experiment I like to do with my scouts (I'm a boy scout leader :)) is to look at the moon when it's low on the horizon and compare it to what it looks like high in the sky. Low it looks much bigger but. if you use some sort of gage (I tell them to use their thumb) you find it's the same size. The mind is easily fooled by less than obvious distractions.

Crazytimes
8th November 2009, 10:04 PM
I have a question for the OPer. If you were standing anywhere near the pentagon and a plane flew at over 500 mph at a low altitude, how easily do you think you could place where the plane is/was ? Unless you knew that is was coming and from where, there is no way you could get a good idea of where it is/was.

tj15
8th November 2009, 10:42 PM
I have a question for the OPer. If you were standing anywhere near the pentagon and a plane flew at over 500 mph at a low altitude, how easily do you think you could place where the plane is/was ? Unless you knew that is was coming and from where, there is no way you could get a good idea of where it is/was.

But if I was standing at the citgo gas station, looking, say, north, I would probably be able to tell if the airplane was in front of me (in my sight) or behind me (not in my sight).

Again, this doesn't mean that the eyewitnesses who think the plane passed north of the citgo station are correct... It was hectic and eyewitnesses can be unreliable.

TruthersLie
9th November 2009, 03:33 AM
eyewintesses "can be unreliable?" Um... no.

eyewitnesses are USUALLY unreliable for specific details. That is why prosecutors LOVE physical evidence and usually have to coach witnesses and don't like them.

5 witnesses to an event will usually have 5 different versions, each on slightly different. When you then interview people YEARS after the event, you are bound to get differing stories.

There literally are TONS of psychology papers on how bad most eyewitnesses are.
http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Social-sciences/Eyewitness-testimony-false-alarms-on-biased-instructions-How-critical-is-the-accuracy-of-an-eyewitne.html
http://www.thepsychfiles.com/2009/08/episode-102-how-to-create-an-online-experiment-on-eyewitness-testimony-accuracy/
http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr06/eyewitness.html
http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/47497.html

I could go on all day.

Asking someone where they were and exactly what they were doing YEARS after an event is ********.

9/11 Chewy Defense
9th November 2009, 04:14 AM
Let's see here:

I was sleeping at the time after the Towers collapsed. Got woke up by my parents (was spending the night at their house) saying that the Towers were hit & destroyed. Turned on TV in spare bedroom just in time to hear about Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. Then Flight 93 flew overhead near my town, & that plane was louder than the commerical jets that takeoff & land here at the airport. After some time I heard a whole bunch of sirens going off from the adjacent highway (RT. 219), fire trucks & police cars. Watched the News to hear Flight 93 crashed.

The whole thing was too chaotic to say the least. I remembered this from over 8 yrs ago & it still haunts the hell out of me. I still remember my childhood too!

And of course, my B-day's on 9/12. The day after! Not exactly a B-day gift I wanted. :(

tj15
9th November 2009, 07:03 AM
eyewintesses "can be unreliable?" Um... no.

eyewitnesses are USUALLY unreliable for specific details. That is why prosecutors LOVE physical evidence and usually have to coach witnesses and don't like them.

5 witnesses to an event will usually have 5 different versions, each on slightly different. When you then interview people YEARS after the event, you are bound to get differing stories.

There literally are TONS of psychology papers on how bad most eyewitnesses are.
http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Social-sciences/Eyewitness-testimony-false-alarms-on-biased-instructions-How-critical-is-the-accuracy-of-an-eyewitne.html
http://www.thepsychfiles.com/2009/08/episode-102-how-to-create-an-online-experiment-on-eyewitness-testimony-accuracy/
http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr06/eyewitness.html
http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/47497.html

I could go on all day.

Asking someone where they were and exactly what they were doing YEARS after an event is ********.
The reason why I asked about this LaGasse guy is because I was wondering if maybe someone knew something about him that I didn't know... He claims to have seen an airplane north of Citgo. But the airplane actually passed on the OPPOSITE side of Citgo. I didn't know if maybe he was looking in a different direction, or maybe thought he saw the plane but really just heard it, or... ect.

Same goes for the other handful of witnesses that saw this same thing.

I guess eyewitnesses miss obvious stuff considering the damage path and physical evidence...

TruthersLie
9th November 2009, 07:24 AM
The reason why I asked about this LaGasse guy is because I was wondering if maybe someone knew something about him that I didn't know... He claims to have seen an airplane north of Citgo. But the airplane actually passed on the OPPOSITE side of Citgo. I didn't know if maybe he was looking in a different direction, or maybe thought he saw the plane but really just heard it, or... ect.

Same goes for the other handful of witnesses that saw this same thing.

I guess eyewitnesses miss obvious stuff considering the damage path and physical evidence...
Be careful, your twoof is showing through. Unless that wasn't sarcasm (which makes it even more of a facepalm moment).

And beachnut pointed you to their ORIGINAL statements when it was much fresher in their minds.

And notice that in 8 years, their statements have changed, because their memory fades.

When you have overwhelming physical evidence (are you JAQing off still?), with on the spot eyewitnesses (look up the xls sheet that was given to you which you didn't bother to look at), it definately trumps 8 years after hazy memories and datamined quotes.

why is that sooooooooo hard for you to understand?

Ready? Quick, tell me what you were doing, where you were and everything that happened to you on the morning of 9/11. Not generalities, but specificis. Where were you, how long were you there, who did you talk to EXACTLY. I have a fantastic memory, and I can't tell you with that much detail.

Especially when it is a traumatic event. Often times the eyewitnesses are hazy on what happened RIGHT before the event because they are NOT PAYING ATTENTION when it happens.

W.D.Clinger
9th November 2009, 07:26 AM
The reason why I asked about this LaGasse guy is because I was wondering if maybe someone knew something about him that I didn't know... He claims to have seen an airplane north of Citgo. But the airplane actually passed on the OPPOSITE side of Citgo. I didn't know if maybe he was looking in a different direction, or maybe thought he saw the plane but really just heard it, or... ect.

Same goes for the other handful of witnesses that saw this same thing.

I guess eyewitnesses miss obvious stuff considering the damage path and physical evidence...

Here is John Farmer's analysis of the main north-of-CITGO witnesses:

http://aal77.com/citgo/Citgo%20Update.pdf

Will

MRC_Hans
9th November 2009, 07:37 AM
There are about 8 people in that video that think the plane was north of citco. How are they all mistaken?

This is actually the first time I have looked into this flight path stuff, so my questions may be stupid.My personal take on that. Have you ever looked at low-flying planes, passing overhead?

Now, either you spin your head about, trying to follow it, in which case you are in a very poor position to actually position the pass. Especially when being entirely unprepared.

Or, you really only observe the plane in your peripheral vision (very likely in the surprise situation), in which case the most prominent thing you see is the ground shadow. The shadow of a jetliner is rather huge. Seing the time of day for the Pentagon strike, the ground shadow would be north of the plane's actual path.

My guess is that they saw the shadow passing north of the Citgo station and assumed that this indicated the path of the plane.

Hans

Mr.Herbert
9th November 2009, 07:50 AM
Again, this doesn't mean that the eyewitnesses who think the plane passed north of the citgo station are correct... It was hectic and eyewitnesses can be unreliable.

Yes, they are unreliable. IIRC, Lagasse had to be corrected as to what side of the gas station he was pumping gas from.

CurtC
9th November 2009, 07:56 AM
I don't hang out in this part of the forum too much anymore, but if the OP is talking about Ranke's video, it's not true that all of the witnesses support a NoC path.

Ed Paik, the asian guy from the car repair shop, tells a story that refutes the NoC path. He clearly indicates that it flew south of where he was, which would be directly over or south of Columbia Pike. From there, he indicates a straight-line path to the Pentagon. This path passes south of the Citgo.

If the plane flew over Paik or to his south, there is no physical way that it could have been on a path north of the Citgo and then turned to hit the Pentagon - it's too sharp of a turn for a plane to make at high speed.

Further, had the plane been on a north-of-Citgo path, Paik would not have been able to see it at all because it would have been two or three blocks to the north of where he was.

Including Paik's account falsifies their NoC idea.

tj15
9th November 2009, 10:27 AM
Be careful, your twoof is showing through. Unless that wasn't sarcasm (which makes it even more of a facepalm moment).

And beachnut pointed you to their ORIGINAL statements when it was much fresher in their minds.

And notice that in 8 years, their statements have changed, because their memory fades.

When you have overwhelming physical evidence (are you JAQing off still?), with on the spot eyewitnesses (look up the xls sheet that was given to you which you didn't bother to look at), it definately trumps 8 years after hazy memories and datamined quotes.

why is that sooooooooo hard for you to understand?

Ready? Quick, tell me what you were doing, where you were and everything that happened to you on the morning of 9/11. Not generalities, but specificis. Where were you, how long were you there, who did you talk to EXACTLY. I have a fantastic memory, and I can't tell you with that much detail.

Especially when it is a traumatic event. Often times the eyewitnesses are hazy on what happened RIGHT before the event because they are NOT PAYING ATTENTION when it happens.
This accusation that I'm a truther is complete nonsense.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=158533
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=158367
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=158285&highlight=tj15
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140936&highlight=tj15
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140856&highlight=tj15
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=137293&highlight=tj15
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115212&highlight=tj15
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140636&highlight=tj15
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140317&highlight=tj15
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=118225&highlight=tj15
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=116325&highlight=tj15

Read these threads... My posting is consistently the same. Where in those threads have I ever agreed with the truther position?

You are not the first person to question whether I am a truther.

TruthersLie
9th November 2009, 11:04 AM
This accusation that I'm a truther is complete nonsense.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=158533
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=158367
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=158285&highlight=tj15
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140936&highlight=tj15
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140856&highlight=tj15
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=137293&highlight=tj15
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115212&highlight=tj15
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140636&highlight=tj15
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140317&highlight=tj15
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=118225&highlight=tj15
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=116325&highlight=tj15

Read these threads... My posting is consistently the same. Where in those threads have I ever agreed with the truther position?

You are not the first person to question whether I am a truther.

walks like a twoof, quacks like a twoof, JAQ's like a twoof, is probably a twoof.

if you aren't, then I apologize. It doesn't change the fact that you have consistently shown a lack of
1. the ability to do simple research
2. want to be spoon fed
3. are asking questions in a way which look extremely trutheresque.

tj15
9th November 2009, 11:19 AM
walks like a twoof, quacks like a twoof, JAQ's like a twoof, is probably a twoof.

if you aren't, then I apologize. It doesn't change the fact that you have consistently shown a lack of
1. the ability to do simple research
2. want to be spoon fed
3. are asking questions in a way which look extremely trutheresque.

Well, think what you want. Ignore my posts that you think are stupid.

W.D.Clinger
9th November 2009, 11:32 AM
if you aren't, then I apologize. It doesn't change the fact that you have consistently shown a lack of
1. the ability to do simple research
2. want to be spoon fed
3. are asking questions in a way which look extremely trutheresque.

Well, the first two points mainly confirm that he's human.

As for the third, there is nothing wrong with asking questions. Good questions are a lot harder to come by than good answers.

By "trutheresque", I assume you refer to defensiveness, persistence, transportation of goal posts, or other evasions when questions are answered. In defense of the original poster, the WWW now contains so much nonsense on this subject that it takes a while to separate sense from nonsense. The original poster is right not to believe everything he reads or hears.

Will

grandmastershek
9th November 2009, 11:40 AM
Not sure if this belongs here but, a Professor from North Eastern tackles Pilots for Twoof and their version of physics.

http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/will/Music/Jokes/Balsamo/balsamo2.html

Anyway, it's above my head but I figured some may find it interesting.

Caustic Logic
9th November 2009, 02:28 PM
I can't view the links for some reason... Did any witnesses see the light poles get hit?

Not really, and hardly anyone would. Split-second occurrence overshadowed by the massive plane they all saw do nothing to the building but hit it low. All physical and other evidence supports this. Except a few nuts who insist the plane flew over (w/no confirming witnesses on the other side) and a few witnesses who swear it flew north of the station.

This conflicts with the evidence, that's for sure. If you don't like the honest mistake theories presented so far, these witnesses could also be lying. Check this thread. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=121797) But eyewitness WORDS, true wrong memory or not, DO NOT trump tons of airplane, massive building damage, a hundred-ish witnesses to impact, and nothing but these few words and fevered wishful thinking to counteract it.

Caustic Logic
9th November 2009, 02:30 PM
I don't hang out in this part of the forum too much anymore, but if the OP is talking about Ranke's video, it's not true that all of the witnesses support a NoC path.

Ed Paik, the asian guy from the car repair shop, tells a story that refutes the NoC path. He clearly indicates that it flew south of where he was, which would be directly over or south of Columbia Pike. From there, he indicates a straight-line path to the Pentagon. This path passes south of the Citgo.

If the plane flew over Paik or to his south, there is no physical way that it could have been on a path north of the Citgo and then turned to hit the Pentagon - it's too sharp of a turn for a plane to make at high speed.

Further, had the plane been on a north-of-Citgo path, Paik would not have been able to see it at all because it would have been two or three blocks to the north of where he was.

Including Paik's account falsifies their NoC idea.

South Path Witnesses (http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/08/south-path-impact-documented.html)

Mr.Herbert
9th November 2009, 03:23 PM
South Path Witnesses (http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/08/south-path-impact-documented.html)

Adam ~

I just listened to the interview the CIT dolts had with the woman "Wanda?" OMFG what a butcher job. She tells them both that she saw the plane hit the light poles!! No wonder CIT said the drugs wiped out her memory.

Caustic Logic
9th November 2009, 04:37 PM
Adam ~

I just listened to the interview the CIT dolts had with the woman "Wanda?" OMFG what a butcher job. She tells them both that she saw the plane hit the light poles!! No wonder CIT said the drugs wiped out her memory.

Yes indeed, Mr. it was an awkward moment, like watching a slow-motion mugging. Wanda did seem to forget if she saw the poles hit or was it a turn of phrase? Likely the latter, since no one else really saw it, clearly. George Aman is the best light pole witness, IMO, aside from Lloyd of course, who didn't actually see any of them get hit. Just heard and saw one flying through his friggin windshield. Lying accomplice fer shure!

Oh God, why can't people figure out for themselves what does and doesn't make sense?

A W Smith
9th November 2009, 05:28 PM
The reason why I asked about this LaGasse guy is because I was wondering if maybe someone knew something about him that I didn't know... He claims to have seen an airplane north of Citgo. But the airplane actually passed on the OPPOSITE side of Citgo. I didn't know if maybe he was looking in a different direction, or maybe thought he saw the plane but really just heard it, or... ect.

Same goes for the other handful of witnesses that saw this same thing.

I guess eyewitnesses miss obvious stuff considering the damage path and physical evidence...


You are aware he was under a huge canopy, right? And because of the azimuth and altitude of the sun that morning the shadow of flight 77 was cast in the direction of the Citgo?

tj15
10th November 2009, 06:58 AM
You are aware he was under a huge canopy, right? And because of the azimuth and altitude of the sun that morning the shadow of flight 77 was cast in the direction of the Citgo?

Yes, I just found out about that not too long ago. Of all the 9/11 research I have done (not near as much as most people here), I never really looked into the flight path of flight 77 stuff before. This stuff may be old to most of you, but I actually didn't know about all this stuff until recently.

mudlark
11th November 2009, 04:00 PM
It's been discussed over literally a thousand pages of the Forum.

Yes, he has been debunked. This tiny part of his recollection (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2472903#post2472903) conflicts with the RADAR records of the flight, the FDR records, the damage path, and a majority of eyewitnesses -- including Mr. Lagasse himself, who saw the impact. The fine details are also inconsistent in several other respects (as pointed out even by other truthers (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2009/07/william-lagasse-these-poles-were-not.html)). Furthermore, he does not support (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2473135#post2473135) the conspiracy theories himself.

Bottom line, he is mistaken about the aircraft's precise location prior to impact. It happens. This is only interesting if you're desperate for an "anomaly" to bolster a preconceived opinion.

´This tiny part of his recollection´ has major implications wouldn´t you say?
His associate Brooks draws the exact same flightpath as him as pointed out in the video linked to.
The RADES data, FDR data and damage consistent with the proposed SOC flightpath are at odds with 99% of witness testimony who were in an actual position to see the final moments of the flightpath within the basin of land from the Navy Annex to the Pentagon facade.
The exception being Lloyd England :eye-poppi

There are also serious questions raised as to the validity of the RADES/FDR Data here (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=7163) so I´d say this was far from contradictory evidence.

If Lagasse did in fact see an ´impact´ from where he was how can we question his testimony to seeing which side of the Citgo Gas Station he saw the plane on?

¨Obviously what I saw happened, therefore the conclusions made by people who didnt see it can be flawed...I accept the fact that there can be miscalculations on my part, but NOT whether or not the plane was on the North or South side of the gas station."

~Sgt William Lagasse after watching The PentaCon and responding to the ASCE

He is adamant in his testimony.

He is backed up by credible witnesses in the ANC area.

These 4 ANC witnesses in the video describe the approach as being over the right hand side of the Annex ´in a bank´.
Another ANC witness is George Aman who in his original CMH interview (http://www.thepentacon.com/neit419) says

The plane flies right over the parking lot here

He also describes the bank mentioned by the other ANC witnesses.

Sean Boger supports (http://thepentacon.com/Topic11.htm) Laggasse´s testimony from yet another angle. Actually on the Pentagon grounds at the heliport.

¨It would be on my right or the gas station´s left. If I´m looking out my window
Because I´m looking toward the gas station...it would be on my right hand side.¨

¨As he was coming towards me it just seemed like he was tilting the aircraft to
his right ¨


Or Levi Stephens (http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic9.htm)?

He said repeatedly that it was on the "right" of the station or that it would be on his "left" if he was at the station facing the Pentagon.

He further confirmed by saying that it was on the "Arlington Cemetery" side of the gas station.



Robert Turcios (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iNZNmQPUgs)?

They all put the plane NOC. They all had the best view. Most importantly they back up Lagasse´s testimony.
So before we jump ahead to any conclusions as to what his placement of the plane implicates,I believe the original poster´s question was ´has Lagasse´s testimony been debunked´

Opinions and possible explanations as to how he was mistaken linked to as a response are exactly that. Opinions.
He is supported by corraborrative testimony.
The accusation that he confused ´left´ with ´right´ is absurd and contradicted by no other witness. He saw it to his left.

Baylor
11th November 2009, 04:10 PM
We've been through this a thousand times. Ranke's too dumb to realize he put himself in a lose-lose situation, and apparently you are too.

16.5
11th November 2009, 04:12 PM
[QUOTE=mudlark;5301302The RADES data, FDR data and damage consistent with the proposed SOC flightpath are at odds with 99% of witness testimony who were in an actual position to see the final moments of the flightpath within the basin of land from the Navy Annex to the Pentagon facade.[/QUOTE]

That is a huge *********** lie. http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html

Oh boy, another completely brain washed CITpleton.

Tell Craig and the Buffet Slayer to release their unedited footage, like they promised, Edited for civility


Do not circumvent the Autocensor. Be civil and polite.

Mr.Herbert
11th November 2009, 04:18 PM
Mudlark? Aldo? Turbofan? Bobby? Ranke? Whatever your name is today. We have been over this crap for years. Your pathetic flyover theory is no longer laughable - it's sad.

Read a couple books related to the Pentagon, then come back to us and learn how to have an adult discussion. Until then, in addition to the books, I suggest you read the countless threads already dedicated to the horse manure that is spread by Balsamo and Ranke.

Reheat
11th November 2009, 04:19 PM
Another one?

mudlark
11th November 2009, 04:20 PM
Originally Posted by tj15
There are about 8 people in that video that think the plane was north of citco. How are they all mistaken?

This is actually the first time I have looked into this flight path stuff, so my questions may be stupid.
He agrees Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon.

The real interviews are right after 911, not years later.
Quote:


http://memory.loc.gov/learn/collecti...1/history.html

CIT witnesses contradicting every thing they imply.

American Airlines Flight 77 from Washington-Dulles International Airport crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m. William Lagasse, Chadwick Brooks, and Donald Brennan were Pentagon police officers on duty at the time of the attack. Lagasse was in the process of refueling his police car when the American Airliner flew past him so low that its wind blast knocked him into his vehicle. In an interview conducted in December 2001 , Lagasse described the secondary explosions and the search and recovery of injured Pentagon personnel. Brooks saw the hijacked plane clip lampposts and nosedive into the Pentagon and described the ensuing scenes of chaos in his interview, taped November 25, 2001.




What did CIT actually ´contradict´?
Their questions weren´t leading and the officers were very careful about what they were saying.
Yes they believed the official story but were visibly taken aback when they realised the implications of their interview.
The original interview (LOC) did not ask him exactly where they saw the plane. This was the main difference in the CIT and LOC questions.
Brooks admitted in the CIT interview that he did NOT see the lightpoles being struck.

Both were ´real´ interviews.

16.5
11th November 2009, 04:23 PM
What did CIT actually ´contradict´?
Their questions weren´t leading and the officers were very careful about what they were saying.
Yes they believed the official story but were visibly taken aback when they realised the implications of their interview.
The original interview (LOC) did not ask him exactly where they saw the plane. This was the main difference in the CIT and LOC questions.
Brooks admitted in the CIT interview that he did NOT see the lightpoles being struck.

Both were ´real´ interviews.

Yeah, yeah, and Aldo is just big boned.

Tell the Citiots to torrent their raw footage, or to shut up.

mudlark
11th November 2009, 04:31 PM
That is a huge farking lie. http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html

Oh boy, another completely brain washed CITpleton.

Tell Craig and the Buffet Slayer to release their unedited footage, like they promised, or until then STFU.

You do know that Mickey Bell is included on that list? Among a host of othersecond hand media quotes that have been debunked.
Anonymous witnesses?
Try harder.

mudlark
11th November 2009, 04:35 PM
Mudlark? Aldo? Turbofan? Bobby? Ranke? Whatever your name is today. We have been over this crap for years. Your pathetic flyover theory is no longer laughable - it's sad.

Read a couple books related to the Pentagon, then come back to us and learn how to have an adult discussion. Until then, in addition to the books, I suggest you read the countless threads already dedicated to the horse manure that is spread by Balsamo and Ranke.



Still waiting on somebody answering my post.
I appear to be the only one having an ´adult discussion´ at the minute.

16.5
11th November 2009, 04:38 PM
You do know that Mickey Bell is included on that list? Among a host of othersecond hand media quotes that have been debunked.
Anonymous witnesses?
Try harder.

Yeah, what do you expect from a Truther list, huh?

Dear me, I do note that you ignore, lets pick one..... Frank Probst... Have at it.

Or don't, Fat Aldo never would.

Just tell them to release their raw videos and to shut up in the meantime, kthxbye.

Baylor
11th November 2009, 04:42 PM
South of Citgo Proof
http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/3337/outputl.gif
South of Citgo Proof
http://aal77.com/jref/dca_impact.gif
South of Citgo Proof
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/Shadow_Visible_area.jpg
South of Citgo Proof
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u27/kikapurider/CITGO2.jpg

Baylor
11th November 2009, 04:44 PM
South of Citgo Proof
http://www.911myths.com/images/6/64/Awmap.png

mudlark
11th November 2009, 04:47 PM
George Aman is the best light pole witness, IMO

How is that physically possible when he claimed the plane flew over the parking lot? At a bank?

Baylor
11th November 2009, 04:58 PM
Did the plane fly over the pentagon? Let's see....

g3ExaPnaXDY

Nope.

mudlark
11th November 2009, 04:59 PM
Yeah, what do you expect from a Truther list, huh?

Dear me, I do note that you ignore, lets pick one..... Frank Probst... Have at it.

Or don't, Fat Aldo never would.

Just tell them to release their raw videos and to shut up in the meantime, kthxbye.

The ASCE report quotes Probst as approaching the heliport, saw the plane come over the Annex and heading ´straight for´ him.
He was actually on the footpath that runs parallel to Route 27 along the Pentagon lawn.
He never mentioned any major deviances in the plane´s flightpath which would have been necessary to manouevre into the lightpole, low level trajectory necessary.
Boger, Christine Peterson, Levi Stephenson, Penny Elgas, Donald Bouchoux and even Steve Riskus narrow the entry point onto route 27 from the direction of the Citgo. Well off the trajectory necessary to make Probst a southside witness.
Are you trying to say that the plane could physically have reached lightpole 1 from Citgo?
Who witnessed this zig-zag pattern?

mudlark
11th November 2009, 05:12 PM
South of Citgo Proof
http://www.911myths.com/images/6/64/Awmap.png


The problem with this is that by the time the NOC had converged with SOC the plane´s entrance onto the lawn were a question of metres apart.
How does this diagram fit with Supelveda and Liebner´s testimonies?
Neither mentioned this low and level approach. Neither mentioned the white plume either in the gatecam footage yo offered as proof.
These two firemen ran for their lives, Wallace diving under the fire engine.
He admits he never saw an impact. He saw it on the lawn for a split second.
This does not prove SOC.
FDR/RADES data are proof? Read my first post. This is FAR from concrete evidence.
You guys are doing well on avoiding the ´debunking´ of Lagasse and the NOC witnesses.

mudlark
11th November 2009, 05:15 PM
The shadow? Explain.

TexasJack
11th November 2009, 06:10 PM
These are the legitimate questions Mudlark promised us? :eek:

beachnut
11th November 2009, 06:10 PM
´... The RADES data, FDR data and damage consistent with the proposed SOC flightpath are at odds with 99% of witness testimony who were in an actual position to see the final moments of the flightpath within the basin of land from the Navy Annex to the Pentagon facade.
...
Pure poppycock.

The FDR has the exact true track course, 61.5 degree that lines up with the lamppost hits, and the impact damage on the Pentagon.

The witnesses all agree the lampposts were hit and that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Please show me the testimony from 2001 and the first part of 2002 that supports your delusion; what is your delusion again. Your all important what happen.

What hit the Pentagon? BTW, the FDR and the DNA was found in the Pentagon and no one planted them.

Zero evidence is your sad reality.

16.5
11th November 2009, 06:22 PM
The ASCE report quotes Probst as approaching the heliport, saw the plane come over the Annex and heading ´straight for´ him.
He was actually on the footpath that runs parallel to Route 27 along the Pentagon lawn.
He never mentioned any major deviances in the plane´s flightpath which would have been necessary to manouevre into the lightpole, low level trajectory necessary.
Boger, Christine Peterson, Levi Stephenson, Penny Elgas, Donald Bouchoux and even Steve Riskus narrow the entry point onto route 27 from the direction of the Citgo. Well off the trajectory necessary to make Probst a southside witness.
Are you trying to say that the plane could physically have reached lightpole 1 from Citgo?
Who witnessed this zig-zag pattern?

Pure unadulterated CIT garbage. Who wrote this garbage originally, SPreston? What a joke. Basically calling Probst a liar because he does not fit in with the cult. Seriously, that is how the freaks hand wave away his testimony: he is not consistent with the others so he is a liar. And then CIT lies, and lies that no one contradicts them. And the cult swallows up these lies like Aldo on free pancake night.

Why do you come here and repeat Fat Aldo and Peter Pan's lies? Don't you have marching orders to get this earth shattering news out to the media??? Say, how is that National Security Alert coming? Utter failure or a Aldo's Wicker Chair style failure?

Release the raw tapes or shut the **** up.

Mr.Herbert
11th November 2009, 06:36 PM
Say, how is that National Security Alert coming? Utter failure or a Aldo's Wicker Chair style failure? .

How many months ago was that crap posted for the National Security Alert? Remember the CIT "REPORT" tab? You were supposed to post all the letters etc, that you sent to the media demanding that they take action?

Hmmm.....



This area is "under construction", but it will eventually be a place for you to report the outcome of your Operation Accountability (http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/strategy.html)efforts. For now please contact (http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/contact.html) us via e-mail with any information. Thank you.

CIT - Gold Medal Winners in the Truther Special Olympics

mudlark
11th November 2009, 07:20 PM
These are the legitimate questions Mudlark promised us? :eek:

No, I´m asking the same question that the original poster asked about whether Lagasse had been debunked.

I was branded a ´twoofer´ with a ´hate-filled agenda´ for merely questioning the official story in earlier posts.
NOC has never been explained without the counterargument which suggests that all these witnesses were wrong. Corraborative witnesses that put the plane way off SOC.
So yes, it is a legitimate question.

16.5
11th November 2009, 07:54 PM
No, I´m asking the same question that the original poster asked about whether Lagasse had been debunked.

I was branded a ´twoofer´ with a ´hate-filled agenda´ for merely questioning the official story in earlier posts.
NOC has never been explained without the counterargument which suggests that all these witnesses were wrong. Corraborative witnesses that put the plane way off SOC.
So yes, it is a legitimate question.

Oh, wait, you mean, did he say that the plane hit the Pentagon? You mean that part right? No, that has clearly never been debunked.

Silly CIT cult members, they fail to realize that their stupid theory is self debunking.

Hilarious! Thanks CIT cult member! Fantastic!

anyhow, make with the raw tape release. kthxbye

Edx
11th November 2009, 08:04 PM
No, I´m asking the same question that the original poster asked about whether Lagasse had been debunked.

I was branded a ´twoofer´ with a ´hate-filled agenda´ for merely questioning the official story in earlier posts.
NOC has never been explained without the counterargument which suggests that all these witnesses were wrong. Corraborative witnesses that put the plane way off SOC.
So yes, it is a legitimate question.

Shame not even all their witness' say North Side, I know you dont know which ones thats whats so funny.

mudlark
11th November 2009, 08:10 PM
Pure poppycock.

The FDR has the exact true track course, 61.5 degree that lines up with the lamppost hits, and the impact damage on the Pentagon.

The witnesses all agree the lampposts were hit and that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Please show me the testimony from 2001 and the first part of 2002 that supports your delusion; what is your delusion again. Your all important what happen.

What hit the Pentagon? BTW, the FDR and the DNA was found in the Pentagon and no one planted them.
Zero evidence is your sad reality.

If it was exact how come so many witnesses put the lane over the Navy Annex, never mind NOC?
How come nobody saw this path?
What witnesses ´all agree the lampposts were hit´?
I think you´ll find that notion debunked here. (http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=51&st=0)

There seems to be major confusion over the fallability of witness testimony which have been linked to regarding forgetting minor details and facial identity and the testimony we are discussing here over the simple recollection of whereabouts people saw a bigass plane looming over them.
Whether they saw it on the left or on the right of a building or ´60ft agl´

The ANC workers all describe the same thing.

It was on top of the Navy Annex.

I looked up, looking in this direction and I can see the plane over the corner of that building here, the Navy Annex. From what I seen it was at RIGHT of it. It was on this corner of it.

We saw a plane over here, the Navy Annex, come from over. [...]
Q: Would you say it was more on the North side of the station over here or the south side?
It was more on this side. Right on this side.

And I looked and damned if I didn´t see him right here, dropping.
From right up there he came..from in between what´s that the Hilton (Sheraton) and the Navy Annex and he started dropping..

The latter being Middleton whose LOC interview can be heard here (http://www.thepentacon.com/WMiddleton.mp3) and his video nterview with CIT here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giX1a1qnL_w)

Boger saw it from an incredible vantage point. NOC.

Even impact witnesses describe NOC.

Penny Elgas.

The plane just appeared there- very low in the air, TO THE SIDE OF (AND NOT MUCH ABOVE) THE CITGO GAS STATION that I never knew was there.

Noel Sepulveda said he saw the plane in the ´Henderson Hall area´ (at right hand side of Navy Annex facing him)

James Cissell places the lane on a ´straight trajectory´.

Steve Riskus


" I was close enough (about 100 ft or so) that I could see the "American Airlines" logo on the tail as it headed towards the building... The plane looked like it was coming in about where you have the "MAX APPROACH" on that picture... I was at about where the "E" in "ANGLE OF CAMERA" is written when the plane hit... It was not completely level, but it was not going straight down, kind of like it was landing with no gear down...¨

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/riskusapproach.jpg


Even Lincoln Leibner in an educational video on 9/11 penned the plane as coming from NOC (404ed) but from his testimony he certainly does not describe SOC. Why didn´t he mention that had the plane flew NOC across the lawn he never mentioned the right wing tip passing withn metres of his position at the SW corner of the building? The plume of white smoke seen in the gatecam?


What needs to be recognised is that NOC and Navy Annex testimony can´t be brushed off.

NOC and Navy Annex corraborative testimony:

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/NOCandstraighttestimony-2.jpg

THIS is what puts a big question mark over the validity of the translated FDR path.


the FDR and the DNA was found in the Pentagon and no one planted them.



You might want to check here (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...showtopic=5505) for the story of the FDR recovery.

The Flight Data Recorder (FDR) was found early in the morning of September 14, 2001. Government reports indicate the FDR was found at the entrance hole of the collapsed E ring. "...the two spotted an intact seat from the plane’s cockpit with a chunk of the floor still attached. Then they saw two odd-shaped dark boxes, about 1.5 by 2 feet long.... Pentagon officials said the recorders, also called "black boxes" were found around 3:40 a.m. under mounds of wreckage in the collapsed part of the building.." (MSNBC Sept 28). "Dick Bridges, a spokesman for Arlington County, Va...said the recorders were found 'right where the plane came into the building.'"

However, The ASCE Building Performance Report and a new book published by the Dept Of Defense claims the FDR was found at the exit hole in the C-Ring. "[FDR] found in the building near the hole in the inner C Ring wall leading to A-E Drive."

Flight Data Recorders and Cockpit Voice Recorders are located in the tail of an aircraft. Not the cockpit. Where are the pictures of the "black boxes" laying in the rubble prior to being removed as is with every other aircraft accident investigation? Where is the what would have been poignant and symbolic photo of this ´cockpit seat´?


Good distraction tactics btw. Still no answer on the Lagasse testimony being ´debunked´. Seems there are a lot of other testimonies to be debunked as well.

mudlark
11th November 2009, 08:13 PM
Shame not even all their witness' say North Side, I know you dont know which ones thats whats so funny.

Which ones that I have mentioned do not describe NOC?
Lagasse? Brooks? ANC witnesses? Boger? Turcios? Stephens? Who?

tj15
11th November 2009, 08:14 PM
South of Citgo Proof
http://www.911myths.com/images/6/64/Awmap.png

Who drew that picture?

Edx
11th November 2009, 08:15 PM
Which ones that I have mentioned do not describe NOC?
Lagasse? Brooks? ANC witnesses? Boger? Turcios? Stephens? Who?

I'll give you a hint, one of them is the only one that CIT actually believes saw a fly over.

mudlark
11th November 2009, 08:19 PM
Oh, wait, you mean, did he say that the plane hit the Pentagon? You mean that part right? No, that has clearly never been debunked.

Silly CIT cult members, they fail to realize that their stupid theory is self debunking.

Hilarious! Thanks CIT cult member! Fantastic!

anyhow, make with the raw tape release. kthxbye

All I´ve asked up to now is for someone to explain to me how the plane reached the first lightpole from NOC.
And how the plane made the damage from NOC.
Explain that and I´ll leave the ´cult´.

I might even join yours :covereyes

Edx
11th November 2009, 08:21 PM
All I´ve asked up to now is for someone to explain to me how the plane reached the first lightpole from NOC.
And how the plane made the damage from NOC.
Explain that and I´ll leave the ´cult´

Which assumes it went NoC to begin with, of course.

beachnut
11th November 2009, 08:21 PM
... Sean Boger supports Laggasse´s testimony from yet another angle. Actually on the Pentagon grounds at the heliport.
...
Sean Boger? Sean saw Flight 77 impact the Pentagon. Sean never placed the flight path on a trajectory that did not hit the Lampposts or the Pentagon. Why are you posting junk? Are you saying Flight 77 did not hit the lampposts witnesses, more witnesses than CIT dolt's have, saw hit?


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
If you want to support the moronic CIT overflight you need to drop Boger from your witness list. Every CIT witness places Flight 77 in the air next to the Pentagon and confirm a jet hit the Pentagon.

Only a few fringe delusional dolts try to spew delusions about a fly over and ignore with much disrespect and treason the DNA of our fellow citizens murdered by terrorists. The lack of investigative skills by CIT is complete. They are the few delusional dolts spewing nonsense.


Zero evidence is your sad reality. ...

What witnesses ´all agree the lampposts were hit´?
I think you´ll find that notion debunked ...

... No, you are the zero evidence opinion hearsay poster, proved by poor support for CIT. Do you support CIT over flight nonsense? You were debunked on 911. 8 years of failed delusions, CIT.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

16.5
11th November 2009, 08:24 PM
Zero evidence is your sad reality..

Agreed! We've been putting up with CIT's lack of evidence forever.

I do love your borderline insane photos with the arrows on them.

Say, sport, why don't you turn those arrows around and show their view of the flyover? Curious that they all said that the plane hit the Pentagon, ain't it?

hee hee hee!

mudlark
11th November 2009, 08:25 PM
I'll give you a hint, one of them is the only one that CIT actually believes saw a fly over.

Can´t be Roosevelt Roberts he saw the ´second plane´ AFTER the impact.
Hmm..

Maria de la Cerda? Dewitt Roseborough? Witnesses described by Eric Dihle?
The witnesses interviewed sy Statter? The Mr. Gurba who talked about a plane that ´missed the Pentagon´ and ´flew over the parking lot´ live that morning on ABC News?
You´ll have to narrow it down mate.

16.5
11th November 2009, 08:28 PM
All I´ve asked up to now is for someone to explain to me how the plane reached the first lightpole from NOC.
And how the plane made the damage from NOC.
Explain that and I´ll leave the ´cult´.

I might even join yours :covereyes

Oh, the fallacy of begging the question. You see, you have to establish how the airliner flew the insane path your heroes came up with in the first place, when all their witnesses say the plane hit the Pentagon.

Your only "evidence" contradicts your pals' idiocy.

or just have the failures release their raw tapes.

tj15
11th November 2009, 08:38 PM
All I´ve asked up to now is for someone to explain to me how the plane reached the first lightpole from NOC.
And how the plane made the damage from NOC.
Explain that and I´ll leave the ´cult´.

I might even join yours :covereyes

How do you explain south path witnesses such as Albert Hemphill, Madelyn Zakhem, Allen Wallace, Tim Timmerman, and Dawn Vignola?

TexasJack
11th November 2009, 08:43 PM
No, I´m asking the same question that the original poster asked about whether Lagasse had been debunked.

I was branded a ´twoofer´ with a ´hate-filled agenda´ for merely questioning the official story in earlier posts.
NOC has never been explained without the counterargument which suggests that all these witnesses were wrong. Corraborative witnesses that put the plane way off SOC.
So yes, it is a legitimate question.

No, it's silly no-planer nonsense. Here's your three letter trump card--DNA.

beachnut
11th November 2009, 08:44 PM
All I´ve asked up to now is for someone to explain to me how the plane reached the first lightpole from NOC.
And how the plane made the damage from NOC.
Explain that and I´ll leave the ´cult´. ...

There is no NOC, it is nonsense made up by idiots based on nothing but moronic anti-investigation techniques. The proof is watching the CIT videos, the witnesses are pointing to the south flight path.

Who cares if you quit believing the delusions of CIT, it is self-critiquing.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77flightpathFDR615degrees.jpg
FDR final track is 61.5 degrees, shown here from GE, it proves the south flight path because it lines up with the impact damage done by a 757 going 483 KIAS. You see physics shows the damage was down by an object the exact shape of a 757 at the speed Flight 77 was going. In addition the jet fuel fireball is exactly what jet fuel fireball looks like for the exact amount of fuel carried by flight 77 going 483 KIAS.

The big killer to the NOC is the passengers DNA and aircraft impact are in line with the final track that matches the downed lampposts seen knocked down by witnesses, and also recored in the FDR found on the same track.

Your NOC was a delusion by dolt non-investigators, never trained to much more than make up false claims. What is CIT excuse; drugs or stupidity?


Can´t be Roosevelt Roberts he saw the ´second plane´ AFTER the impact.
Hmm..

Maria de la Cerda? Dewitt Roseborough? Witnesses described by Eric Dihle?
The witnesses interviewed sy Statter? The Mr. Gurba who talked about a plane that ´missed the Pentagon´ and ´flew over the parking lot´ live that morning on ABC News?
You´ll have to narrow it down mate.
Roberts time line is pure junk. You failed unless you can post a time-line of Roberts that makes sense.

A C-130 flew over the Pentagon at low altitude, right where Roberts could see it. Flight 77 was going 483 KIAS and would be impossible to fly where Roberts saw the C-130. The only large planes over the Pentagon after impact, one C-130. You should have studied the RADAR data and the witness statements from 2001.

16.5
11th November 2009, 08:47 PM
What is CIT excuse; drugs or stupidity?



False dichotomy. Who says it has to be one or the other?

My vote is on both, with a little bit of damage caused by air not getting to the brain during a particularly vigorous battle with a whole baked chicken.

tj15
11th November 2009, 08:50 PM
No, it silly no-planer nonsense. Here's your three letter trump card--DNA.

Truthers will simply say that it is planted... You can't really win an argument with truthers... Especially when it involves evidence that is handled by the government.

A W Smith
11th November 2009, 08:54 PM
Can´t be Roosevelt Roberts he saw the ´second plane´ AFTER the impact.
Hmm..

Maria de la Cerda? Dewitt Roseborough? Witnesses described by Eric Dihle?
The witnesses interviewed sy Statter? The Mr. Gurba who talked about a plane that ´missed the Pentagon´ and ´flew over the parking lot´ live that morning on ABC News?
You´ll have to narrow it down mate.

Domenic.. we have been over this before. the VADOT camera pole foot peg knocked off. The top of the tree just to the overpass having its top shorn off. The shadow of the plane seen in the Citgo security camera, the flight 77 wreckage on the pentagon lawn, The genset trailer being hit by the engine and being pushed TOWARD the pentagon impact hole. The pentagon entry and exit holes lining up with the path towards the VADOT camera pole peg, the tree and all the impacted light poles, The DNA recovered. All this washes away your NOC "witnesses" Who coincidentally to a man say they saw it impact the pentagon. Lagasse was under a canopy and in the process of ducking into his cruiser. from the time its shadow was cast on south gate road on the Citgo security cam till it impacted at 780 feet per second was two seconds, It would have only been in Lagasses field of view three tenths of a second before that shadow was cast and it disappeared from his view over the canopy. before that it was behind the trees up the hillside of the annex. Sorry you lose.

tj15
11th November 2009, 08:55 PM
Has anyone ever asked CIT why on earth the "conspirators" would do a flyover? Why the heck would they do that when they could just crash the plane into the Pentagon?

tj15
11th November 2009, 09:01 PM
Domenic.. we have been over this before. the VADOT camera pole foot peg knocked off. The top of the tree just to the overpass having its top shorn off. The shadow of the plane seen in the Citgo security camera, the flight 77 wreckage on the pentagon lawn, The genset trailer being hit by the engine and being pushed TOWARD the pentagon impact hole. The pentagon entry and exit holes lining up with the path towards the VADOT camera pole peg, the tree and all the impacted light poles, The DNA recovered. All this washes away your NOC "witnesses" Who coincidentally to a man say they saw it impact the pentagon. Lagasse was under a canopy and in the process of ducking into his cruiser. from the time its shadow was cast on south gate road on the Citgo security cam till it impacted at 780 feet per second was two seconds, It would have only been in Lagasses field of view three tenths of a second before that shadow was cast and it disappeared from his view over the canopy. before that it was behind the trees up the hillside of the annex. Sorry you lose.
This might be a stupid question, but do you have a still-shot picture of the shadow from that video of the shadow? That would destroy the north of Citgo witness testimony.

Baylor
11th November 2009, 09:04 PM
This might be a stupid question, but do you have a still-shot picture of the shadow from that video of the shadow? That would destroy the north of Citgo witness testimony.

http://www.veoh.com/search/videos/q/caustic+logic#watch%3Dv14831085ACnQG4Rt

A W Smith
11th November 2009, 09:05 PM
This might be a stupid question, but do you have a still-shot picture of the shadow from that video of the shadow? That would destroy the north of Citgo witness testimony.

from here
http://aal77.com/citgo/Citgo%20Update.pdf

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

tj15
11th November 2009, 09:20 PM
http://www.veoh.com/search/videos/q/caustic+logic#watch%3Dv14831085ACnQG4Rt

WOW! Awesome video!

tj15
11th November 2009, 09:21 PM
from here
http://aal77.com/citgo/Citgo%20Update.pdf

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/citgoshadow.jpg
Thanks!

tj15
11th November 2009, 09:38 PM
from here
http://aal77.com/citgo/Citgo%20Update.pdf

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

Is there anything else that shadow could even possibly be?

A W Smith
11th November 2009, 09:42 PM
Is there anything else that shadow could even possibly be?


A moab.

:dl:

or very fast landscapers

tj15
11th November 2009, 09:46 PM
A moab.

:dl:

or very fast landscapers
LOL!

beachnut
11th November 2009, 11:07 PM
...
There are also serious questions raised as to the validity of the RADES/FDR Data here (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=7163) so I´d say this was far from contradictory evidence.
...
There are zero serious question at pilots for truth. Their best efforts were moronic 11.2 G failed physics. Pilots for truth sell DVDs of implied moronic conclusions based on paranoid anti-government poppycock. Bringing up the p4t as serious anything is proof of failed research and supreme gullibility, not to mention lack of knowledge in subjects required to figure out 911.

p4t claims are claptrap, there is zero chance anyone can support anything p4t claim with evidence and logic. Who missed over 100 witnesses who refute p4t and CIT delusional claims? p4t offer no theories, but do dish-up moronic math.

Seroius Support for serious p4t questions is defined as the empty set, a math term not recognized by p4t 11.2 G cult members.

McHrozni
12th November 2009, 02:26 AM
There are zero serious question at pilots for truth.

My favorite attempt at debate there was trying to explain to one of their "experts with years of experience" that the following theory was unfounded:
An aircraft hits a light pole, a conservative estimate is that 1% of kinetic energy of the aircraft is transfered to the light pole, therefore a conservative estimate of the speed of the light pole will be ~5000 mph, therefore the official story of aircraft knocing the light poles over is impossible.

After showing it that the best possible case, which requires springs on the aircrafts' wings only allows the light pole to achieve twice the speed of the aircraft, I was banned for a month for not providing evidence of a maximum transfer of momentum. Note that I did show them how to turn the equations to show ... just that. Their "expert with years of experience" didn't understand highschool physics and kept the appeal to his authority to overrule it.

McHrozni

Caustic Logic
12th November 2009, 03:03 AM
http://www.veoh.com/search/videos/q/caustic+logic#watch%3Dv14831085ACnQG4Rt
WOW! Awesome video!

Perfect, now that one person showed it to another and they said awesome, it's officially well worth the work. I made that one, and explain it in text here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=117951) and here (http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2007/10/how-citgo-video-contradicts-north-side.html) as well. Oh but the CIT cult has it covered! You can't trust that video as it's been proven manipulated! Here's their proof (http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/04/proof-that-cit-was-manipulated.html).

funk de fino
12th November 2009, 04:41 AM
The ASCE report quotes Probst as approaching the heliport, saw the plane come over the Annex and heading ´straight for´ him.
He was actually on the footpath that runs parallel to Route 27 along the Pentagon lawn.
He never mentioned any major deviances in the plane´s flightpath which would have been necessary to manouevre into the lightpole, low level trajectory necessary.
Boger, Christine Peterson, Levi Stephenson, Penny Elgas, Donald Bouchoux and even Steve Riskus narrow the entry point onto route 27 from the direction of the Citgo. Well off the trajectory necessary to make Probst a southside witness.
Are you trying to say that the plane could physically have reached lightpole 1 from Citgo?
Who witnessed this zig-zag pattern?

Please explain to us where Flight 77 is? Where did it go?

tj15
12th November 2009, 08:31 AM
Perfect, now that one person showed it to another and they said awesome, it's officially well worth the work. I made that one, and explain it in text here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=117951) and here (http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2007/10/how-citgo-video-contradicts-north-side.html) as well. Oh but the CIT cult has it covered! You can't trust that video as it's been proven manipulated! Here's their proof (http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/04/proof-that-cit-was-manipulated.html).
In the second link, you say that some stuff in your original analysis was not accurate. In this video, http://www.veoh.com/search/videos/q/caustic+logic#watch%3Dv14831085ACnQG4Rt , is everything adjusted so that it is accurate?

Also, great work!

CurtC
12th November 2009, 09:43 AM
Each time this CIT thing comes up, I love pointing out that one of their star witnesses, if he is to be believed, absolutely disproves their thesis. If Ed Paik saw the plane fly overhead and/or to the south of him, then plane had to fly south of the Citgo.

Had the plane gone north of the Citgo, Ed could not have seen it. This isn't a question, like the people at the gas station, where they could just misremember where they were standing - with Ed, either he saw the plane and it went south, or he didn't see it at all.

tsig
12th November 2009, 11:03 AM
Still waiting on somebody answering my post.
I appear to be the only one having an ´adult discussion´ at the minute.

Physical evidence trumps eyewitness evidence.

tsig
12th November 2009, 11:06 AM
How is that physically possible when he claimed the plane flew over the parking lot? At a bank?

I believe the mute witness of the bodies of the victims.

tsig
12th November 2009, 11:11 AM
The problem with this is that by the time the NOC had converged with SOC the plane´s entrance onto the lawn were a question of metres apart.
How does this diagram fit with Supelveda and Liebner´s testimonies?
Neither mentioned this low and level approach. Neither mentioned the white plume either in the gatecam footage yo offered as proof.
These two firemen ran for their lives, Wallace diving under the fire engine.
He admits he never saw an impact. He saw it on the lawn for a split second.
This does not prove SOC.
FDR/RADES data are proof? Read my first post. This is FAR from concrete evidence.
You guys are doing well on avoiding the ´debunking´ of Lagasse and the NOC witnesses.

Can you tell me just how long the eyewitnesses had to make their determinations. At 500 mph by the time they became aware of what was happening it would be over with. This was not a moment frozen in time but a dynamic, confusing scenario.

tsig
12th November 2009, 11:12 AM
The shadow? Explain.

A shadow happens when an opaque object interrupts the light.

tsig
12th November 2009, 11:16 AM
Which assumes it went NoC to begin with, of course.

When you assume your conclusions it makes things much easier.

tj15
12th November 2009, 12:16 PM
Mudlark,

Can you explain the south of Citgo witnesses and the shadow made by flight 77?

mudlark
12th November 2009, 01:07 PM
South of Citgo Proof
http://www.911myths.com/images/6/64/Awmap.png

Thanks for the NOC proof....

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/WallaceDrawingOverlayed.jpg

dtugg
12th November 2009, 01:18 PM
LOL! Thanks for the laughs, CITiot sock.

WildCat
12th November 2009, 01:21 PM
Thanks for the NOC proof....

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/WallaceDrawingOverlayed.jpg
Your Pentagon walls don't line up for some reason, likely because you're deliberately trying to deceive.

Nice try!

lapman
12th November 2009, 01:22 PM
Thanks for the NOC proof....

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/WallaceDrawingOverlayed.jpg
Actually, if you follow his line, it goes directly over the CITGO. So, it could be said to be niether proof of NOC or SOC.

ETA: Now line up the wall of the Pentagon and post that picture. Or are you deliberately trying to deceive?

ETAA: Aargh. Wildcat beat me to it. LOL

tj15
12th November 2009, 01:27 PM
This arguing over a picture that someone drew is weak...

Mudlark, please explain the south of Citgo witnesses and the shadow from flight 77.

dtugg
12th November 2009, 01:41 PM
Has anyone ever asked CIT why on earth the "conspirators" would do a flyover? Why the heck would they do that when they could just crash the plane into the Pentagon?

I think Craig said that it was because the NWO needed to damage the building in a very precise manner that couldn't be achieved with an airliner impact in order to destroy some files or computers or whatever. Apparently the NWO doesn't have shredders or incinerators and the risk of attempting the most convoluted scheme in human history was worth it.

tj15
12th November 2009, 01:44 PM
I think Craig said that it was because the NWO needed to damage the building in a very precise manner to destroy some files or computers or whatever. Apparently the NWO doesn't have shredders or incinerators and the risk of attempting the most convoluted scheme in human history was worth it.

Yeah... I laugh when they use "destruction of evidence" as a motive for demolishing WTC7.

WildCat
12th November 2009, 01:47 PM
Hmmm...

http://home.mindspring.com/~dylanaverysucksballs/drawing.jpg

mudlark
12th November 2009, 01:59 PM
Sean Boger? Sean saw Flight 77 impact the Pentagon. Sean never placed the flight path on a trajectory that did not hit the Lampposts or the Pentagon. Why are you posting junk? Are you saying Flight 77 did not hit the lampposts witnesses, more witnesses than CIT dolt's have, saw hit?


Are you sure about that trajectory?

Boger interview. (http://www.thepentacon.com/SeanBogerATC.htm)

¨If I´m looking out the window because I´m looking towards the gas station, it would be on my right hand side.¨

¨I saw it clip...an information sign on the highway.¨

Was this the same sign that Robert Turcios described?
I believe this to be corraborative eyewitness testimony from two opposite POVs.

At 04:20 in this interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iNZNmQPUgs) he describes how the plane ´lifted´ to get over a signpost on the road.

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/robertflightpath2.jpg

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/turcios1.jpg

It could not have been the sign beside the first lightpole not just because it is physically impossible for the plane to reach it from NOC but because Boger does not describe this manouevre AT ALL.

What I want to understand is how Boger could see the plane NOC AND an impact.
How is it that he describes the plane from its appearance at the Navy Annex to the motorway completely on the North path without deviance to reach the lightpoles?

When asked what side of the Navy Annex he saw the lane come over:

¨I would say more to the right also¨

When asked how long it took the plane to reach the Pentagon from the Navy Annex

¨It took 8-15 seconds¨

¨as he was coming towards me he was tilting the aircraft to HIS right¨

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/SeanBogersPOV.jpg

Compare his testimony to these people:

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/ancgif2.gif

So, we have 3 people at the Citgo Gas Station who saw the plane NOC from the station itself, 5 workers at the ANC who describe exactly what Boger described. He was facing the incoming plane.
So why should he be removed from the NOC list?
Because he said he saw an impact? He didn´t duck at all?
Then I take it his doubts about what the gatecam showed still stands?

When asked was the plane ´low and level over the grass´

¨No¨

¨he was descending¨

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/pentanimorig-1.gif

¨the gatecam is ..uh...like 3 feet off the ground...I´m like 2 stories up...as I´m looking at that plane that plane didn´t seem like it was level.It seemed like it was actually at a point of descent.So if it was let´s say 3 stories high it was descending to 2 stories high.So it wasn´t, I didn´t see like anything level.
So it wasn´t, I didn´t see like anything level.
To me it would be like too big to actually be that level.
Because he was almost like you know 10-15 feet from the ground if you just go by that video. I mean if that´s the case he would have taken out a lot more stuff....he definitely would have taken out a lot more stuff than he did.

When asked if the plane hit high or low

¨I pretty much say it hit maybe between the 2nd and 3rd floor¨

ASCE

¨The aircraft seems for the most part to have slipped betwwen the first floor slab on grade and the second floor¨

If he froze in that cubicle in the helipad tower and watched the plane enter the lawn area (from NOC),he also goes on to question what was shown in the gatecam footage.
Take him off the list?
Nah.

tj15
12th November 2009, 02:01 PM
Are Cindy Reyes and the driving range on the official flight 77 flight path?

beachnut
12th November 2009, 02:05 PM
Poster of CIT junk waves hand, says p4t have serious questions, and joins 8 years of failure.

Never will explain in detail why his failed ideas are dashed when the FDR was found in the Pentagon along with DNA from Flight 77 passengers. Two things never refuted with evidence, just hand waving. Flight 77 engine, evidence, that CIT and p4t hand wave away with hearsay and moronic delusions.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77engine.jpg
Evidence from a trial; never debunked with evidence only failed attempts to spread doubt with lies and the failed statement, "photos are not evidence" lie. So the kool-aid drinkers are reduced to posting lies formed by dolts at CIT and p4t whose best efforts are pure nonsense.

The flight path for the last few seconds was on a true track of 61.5 degrees and the CIT failed idea believers failed to refute that fact except by waving hands and citing failed 11.2g dolts at p4t.

Mr.Herbert
12th November 2009, 02:09 PM
FINISH THE INTERVIEW LIAR! Post the description he gave as he watched the plane GO INTO THE PENTAGON.

Really Craig, are you that desperate for attention? Go back and interview a few more so that we can watch yet another self debunking P.O.S. like all your other ones.

Mr.Herbert
12th November 2009, 02:12 PM
here troll:

"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 (http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/pentagram/6_46/local_news/12049-1.html) November 16, 2001


You understand Craig? Can it be spelled out for you ANY CLEARER??

mudlark
12th November 2009, 02:15 PM
This arguing over a picture that someone drew is weak...

Mudlark, please explain the south of Citgo witnesses and the shadow from flight 77.

Yep,
I 100% agree. It proves nothing.
You´ll have to point out which ´south of Citgo witnesses´ you are referring to and if they are confirmed and verified. Not media reports or second hand testimony.

First prove to me that it IS a shadow and not a glitch in the video.
A video that has been discussed here. (http://thepentacon.com/Topic8.htm)
That is as weak if not weaker argument than the drawing. Scanning grainy possibly contaminated videos for a POSSIBLE shadow and ignoring/sidestepping confirme corraborative testimony.
Are you trying to say that this trumps this evidence?
If I presented this ´shadow´ I´d be laughed out of this discussion. Again. Weak.

mudlark
12th November 2009, 02:18 PM
Hmmm...

http://home.mindspring.com/~dylanaverysucksballs/drawing.jpg

1. This is Wallace´s drawing. It was drawn after the much publicized official route were made public.

2. He obviously had very little time to specify exactly where he saw the plane in relation to the wall. He saw a bigass plane heading for him for God´s sake!

So many people think Mark and I watched the plane hit the building. We did NOT. We only saw it approach for an instant. I would estimate not longer than half a second. Others didn’t understand why we didn’t hear it sooner. We did not hear it until right after we saw it. I estimate that the plane hit the building only 1˝-2 seconds after we saw it. What I am saying is, immediately after we saw it, we heard the noise; the engines, I’m sure. I described that as a terrible noise – loud, scary, and horrible. At the time we saw the plane I said, “LET’S GO!” and Mark and I ran away from the area. I turned and ran to my right, going north. (I do not remember which way Mark went, since I did not see him until I crawled out from under the Ford Van.)



Do you actually think this guy had time to find his bearings in a 1-2 second timeframe while running for his life?
Weak.

16.5
12th November 2009, 02:20 PM
you are referring to and if they are confirmed and verified.

O'RLY. Yeah, confirmed and verified. Say, that is what Fat Aldo said about Probst before Craig called Probst a liar. Things that make ya go hmmm, hey SP?

Anyhow, about that verification, when you swang back to the freaking CIT tree house, did you ask Peter Pan and The Buffet Slayer when they were going to release the freaking raw video like they promised?

Sorry I keep bringing it up.
Once, however, would be enough.
Cripes, I am sure even you want it, right??
Knowing after all is half the battle.

16.5
12th November 2009, 02:22 PM
2. He obviously had very little time to specify exactly where he saw the plane in relation to the wall. He saw a bigass plane heading for him for God´s sake!

Do you actually think this guy had time to find his bearings in a 1-2 second timeframe while running for his life?
Weak.
BWHAHAHAHA!!!! Oh man, you just freaking debunked everything that CIT has ever said!!

FANTASTIC!

So it goes!
Once it hits the internet, it is there foreover.
Can someone get a screenshot of that.
Kind of ironic, wouldn't you say?

mudlark
12th November 2009, 02:30 PM
FINISH THE INTERVIEW LIAR! Post the description he gave as he watched the plane GO INTO THE PENTAGON.

Really Craig, are you that desperate for attention? Go back and interview a few more so that we can watch yet another self debunking P.O.S. like all your other ones.

First off I´m NOT Craig detective.
Where in that last post did you actually READ?
How could he describe the flightpath of the plane from a perfect position as being totally NOC from the Annex to the Citgo to the sign he is describing AND see an impact.
How is it humanly possible to watch a plane fly at you from a confined space without flinching??
Not only that but now you are adamant that he watched a 200ft diameter fireball with the windows breaking around him and what some people described as the ´loudest noise´ they had ever heard.
His NOC testimony is corraborated. NOC and impact are impossible.

Crazytimes
12th November 2009, 02:31 PM
Mud,

I dont know why you spend so much time trying to prove a different flight path because a few people were confused that day about what they saw where. Regardless of where the plane was we know for 100% fact that it hit the pentagon because of -

Airplane debris all over the pentagon lawn and inside the pentagon
DNA positively identified inside the pentagon of passengers from the plane
Somewhere around 100 witnesses that saw the impact
Pictures of bodies strapped to airline seats
ZERO witnesses seeing the plane fly over the pentagon

So, I think you are wasting your time. Feel free to explain why you possibly think the SOC is relevant anyways considering we know the facts above.

16.5
12th November 2009, 02:34 PM
First off I´m NOT Craig detective.
Where in that last post did you actually READ?
How could he describe the flightpath of the plane from a perfect position as being totally NOC from the Annex to the Citgo to the sign he is describing AND see an impact.
How is it humanly possible to watch a plane fly at you from a confined space without flinching??
Not only that but now you are adamant that he watched a 200ft diameter fireball with the windows breaking around him and what some people described as the ´loudest noise´ they had ever heard.
His NOC testimony is corraborated. NOC and impact are impossible.

So now you are calling BOGER a liar too? (cit mode) I can't wait until you go say that to his face! (cit mode off)

Seems like everyone is lying to the CIT boys.
One thing I wish, is that
CIT would release the raw video.
Know when they plan to do that?

WildCat
12th November 2009, 02:34 PM
2. He obviously had very little time to specify exactly where he saw the plane in relation to the wall. He saw a bigass plane heading for him for God´s sake!



Do you actually think this guy had time to find his bearings in a 1-2 second timeframe while running for his life?

BWHAHAHAHA!!!! Oh man, you just freaking debunked everything that CIT has ever said!!

FANTASTIC!

So it goes!
Once it hits the internet, it is there foreover.
Can someone get a screenshot of that.
Kind of ironic, wouldn't you say?
Zing! :D

dtugg
12th November 2009, 02:35 PM
Airplane debris all over the pentagon lawn and inside the pentagon
DNA positively identified inside the pentagon of passengers from the plane
Somewhere around 100 witnesses that saw the impact
Pictures of bodies strapped to airline seats
ZERO witnesses seeing the plane fly over the pentagon



Well, obviously that was all faked. After all, a few witnesses interviewed by a couple of idiots with an agenda years later say the plane flew on the other side of some gas station (but that it still hit the Pentagon). Sheesh, how much more evidence could you want?

Crazytimes
12th November 2009, 02:37 PM
Well, obviously that was all faked. After all, a few witnesses interviewed by a couple of idiots with an agenda years later say the plane flew on the other side of some gas station (but that it still hit the Pentagon). Sheesh, how much more evidence could you want?

Cool, then Mud should be able to explain to me how they faked all of this. Things like planting debris all over the lawn in broad daylight.

mudlark
12th November 2009, 02:38 PM
BWHAHAHAHA!!!! Oh man, you just freaking debunked everything that CIT has ever said!!

FANTASTIC!

So it goes!
Once it hits the internet, it is there foreover.
Can someone get a screenshot of that.
Kind of ironic, wouldn't you say?

Now you are reaching man.
There is a major difference between somebody saying they saw a plane coming over their heads and placing it in relationship to the surroundings and a guy watching the nose of a plane come at him for less than 2 seconds running for his life and diving under a vehicle.

Screen it if you want.

16.5
12th November 2009, 02:50 PM
Now you are reaching man.
There is a major difference between somebody saying they saw a plane coming over their heads and placing it in relationship to the surroundings and a guy watching the nose of a plane come at him for less than 2 seconds running for his life and diving under a vehicle.

Screen it if you want.

So Boger is off the table, huh? Awesome. What other CIT witnesses are you going to be throwing under the bus in this thread?

bje
12th November 2009, 02:57 PM
Now you are reaching man.
There is a major difference between somebody saying they saw a plane coming over their heads and placing it in relationship to the surroundings and a guy watching the nose of a plane come at him for less than 2 seconds running for his life and diving under a vehicle.

Screen it if you want.

Actually, there is a major difference between claiming "the jet flew over and away from the Pentagon," and actually providing positive evidence for a "flyover."

CIT has no such evidence.

We've been over this for years. Craig Ranke knows that he has absolutely NO eyewitnesses to any "flyover" from the hundreds of people all around the Pentagon. None of those people ever reported seeing ANY jet "fly over and away from the Pentagon" as Craig claims.

Now, do we have to educate you too, Mudlark? You don't have a single piece of positive evidence that any "jet flew over and away from the Pentagon." None. Zero. Zilch.

Caustic Logic
12th November 2009, 03:01 PM
In the second link, you say that some stuff in your original analysis was not accurate. In this video, http://www.veoh.com/search/videos/q/caustic+logic#watch%3Dv14831085ACnQG4Rt , is everything adjusted so that it is accurate?

Also, great work!

The mistake was only seen by early readers of that same post. John Farmer set me straight, I used a proper solar calculator, and the post and video are pretty well sound. And I'm not mr. Science, but the basic concepts are simple, math app. but close, and no one's raised any real issues yet.

Great job being a rational human and rising above! Mudlark is still hung up on some words some people have spewed from their mouths about where the plane was. Sorry, words= roughly zero, less than zero here.

stewieg
12th November 2009, 03:04 PM
FINISH THE INTERVIEW LIAR! Post the description he gave as he watched the plane GO INTO THE PENTAGON.

Really Craig, are you that desperate for attention? Go back and interview a few more so that we can watch yet another self debunking P.O.S. like all your other ones.

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/search/label/Craig%20Ranke

mudlark
12th November 2009, 03:06 PM
Cool, then Mud should be able to explain to me how they faked all of this. Things like planting debris all over the lawn in broad daylight.

So let´s ignore the verified recorded testimony in question and jump to the speculatory discussion? Noted.

BigAl
12th November 2009, 03:10 PM
So let´s ignore the verified recorded testimony in question and jump to the speculatory discussion? Noted.

No cherry-picking allowed. Listen to all the eyewitnesses, hundreds of them.

mudlark
12th November 2009, 03:10 PM
The mistake was only seen by early readers of that same post. John Farmer set me straight, I used a proper solar calculator, and the post and video are pretty well sound. And I'm not mr. Science, but the basic concepts are simple, math app. but close, and no one's raised any real issues yet.

Great job being a rational human and rising above! Mudlark is still hung up on some words some people have spewed from their mouths about where the plane was. Sorry, words= roughly zero, less than zero here.

First of all...what are you talking about??
Is the shadow 100%. Not in your opinion. Is it fact?
It really shows how far people will reach here that they will push aside this testimony and concentrate on what may POSSIBLY be a shadow.
My real issue would be the authenticity of the video.
That is, is it uncontaminated? More importantly can it be seen as proof that outweighs this testimony?
No.

16.5
12th November 2009, 03:11 PM
So let´s ignore the verified recorded testimony in question and jump to the speculatory discussion? Noted.

Oops! You have not released all the recorded footage.

Fail.

tj15
12th November 2009, 03:11 PM
Yep,
I 100% agree. It proves nothing.
You´ll have to point out which ´south of Citgo witnesses´ you are referring to and if they are confirmed and verified. Not media reports or second hand testimony.

First prove to me that it IS a shadow and not a glitch in the video.
A video that has been discussed here. (http://thepentacon.com/Topic8.htm)
That is as weak if not weaker argument than the drawing. Scanning grainy possibly contaminated videos for a POSSIBLE shadow and ignoring/sidestepping confirme corraborative testimony.
Are you trying to say that this trumps this evidence?
If I presented this ´shadow´ I´d be laughed out of this discussion. Again. Weak.
I listed a couple south of Citgo witnesses in an earlier post. Can you explain EACH ONE?

As for the shadow, there seems to be some dark sports at the exact moment (if I'm not mistaken) and the exact place (if I'm not mistaken) where there is supposed to be a shadow from flight 77.

lapman
12th November 2009, 03:13 PM
So let´s ignore the verified recorded testimony in question and jump to the speculatory discussion? Noted.
There are no "testimonies." Only a few interviews that you put all your faith into and ignore everything else. Typical of TM cult members. Your interviews are not verified since the physical evidence does not confirm them. In every court of law, physical evidence trumps eyewitness testimony every single time. So, where is your proof that the physical evidence was fabricated, planted, etc.? Do you have even one eyewitness that saw the light poles pushed over by NWO agents? People running around the lawn throwing aircraft debris all over the place? Certainly, you have a "verified and confirmed" eyewitness to that.

mudlark
12th November 2009, 03:14 PM
No cherry-picking allowed. Listen to all the eyewitnesses, hundreds of them.

Yes, that´s all I want to discuss. Witness testimony from whatever source and compare it to these witnesses.
Hundreds? Within the basin of land from the Annex to the Pentagon facade?

mudlark
12th November 2009, 03:17 PM
There are no "testimonies." Only a few interviews that you put all your faith into and ignore everything else. Typical of TM cult members. Your interviews are not verified since the physical evidence does not confirm them. In every court of law, physical evidence trumps eyewitness testimony every single time. So, where is your proof that the physical evidence was fabricated, planted, etc.? Do you have even one eyewitness that saw the light poles pushed over by NWO agents? People running around the lawn throwing aircraft debris all over the place? Certainly, you have a "verified and confirmed" eyewitness to that.

I put my ´faith´ into people who were actually there that day with no axe to grind who were in a position to describe the plane´s approach. Especially if they corraborate from various positions.
This testimony is uncontaminated from ordinary people. That´s why I have ´faith´ in it.

WildCat
12th November 2009, 03:19 PM
Yes, that´s all I want to discuss. Witness testimony from whatever source and compare it to these witnesses.
Hundreds? Within the basin of land from the Annex to the Pentagon facade?
By "these witnesses", you mean the ones who say the plane hit the Pentagon, yes? :rolleyes:

mudlark
12th November 2009, 03:20 PM
I listed a couple south of Citgo witnesses in an earlier post. Can you explain EACH ONE?

As for the shadow, there seems to be some dark sports at the exact moment (if I'm not mistaken) and the exact place (if I'm not mistaken) where there is supposed to be a shadow from flight 77.

You´ll have to remind me..I´m a bit busy at the moment keeping up with questions that have nothing to do with the posts I´ve entered on this thread.


the exact place (if I'm not mistaken) where there is supposed to be a shadow from flight 77.

The important word being ´supposed´

mudlark
12th November 2009, 03:21 PM
By "these witnesses", you mean the ones who say the plane hit the Pentagon, yes? :rolleyes:

I have no problem discussing witnesses who claim to have seen an impact.
I´m trying to discern how NOC coupled with an impact are physically possible.
They aren´t.

dtugg
12th November 2009, 03:22 PM
I put my ´faith´ into people who were actually there that day with no axe to grind who were in a position to describe the plane´s approach. Especially if they corraborate from various positions.
This testimony is uncontaminated from ordinary people. That´s why I have ´faith´ in it.

Of course, you only have faith in the parts that you want to hear. Every one of them says that the plane hit the Pentagon? Well, that just means that they were fooled by the grandest magic trick of all time.

BigAl
12th November 2009, 03:24 PM
I have no problem discussing witnesses who claim to have seen an impact.
I´m trying to discern how NOC coupled with an impact are physically possible.
They aren´t.

Some witnesses report seeing things that are inconsistent with the mass of eyewitnesses and all the physical evidence. They can be ignored.

Unless you are a twoofer.

mudlark
12th November 2009, 03:25 PM
Oops! You have not released all the recorded footage.

Fail.

Really? Where is the quote?


Of course the notion that they manipulated the video footage or the witnesses themselves to place the plane on the north side is sheer lunacy since most of them illustrated the flight path as well.

But that is the beauty of firsthand eyewitness evidence. It is 100% verifiable with the witness directly. Since none of the witnesses have spoken out against CIT we know for a fact that their testimony was presented accurately.

But CIT has already released the interviews in long form in their supplemental presentations:

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/morevideos.html

You'll see that they are quite long and extremely thorough.

If you don't believe CIT reported the accounts accurately, call the witnesses yourself and prove it.

Either way please provide a quote of this alleged "promise" by CIT or admit that you have been lying about this.

WildCat
12th November 2009, 03:27 PM
I have no problem discussing witnesses who claim to have seen an impact.
I´m trying to discern how NOC coupled with an impact are physically possible.
They aren´t.
But it didn't go NoC... :rolleyes:

mudlark
12th November 2009, 03:28 PM
Some witnesses report seeing things that are inconsistent with the mass of eyewitnesses and all the physical evidence. They can be ignored.

Unless you are a twoofer.

Who are the ´mass of witnesses´? And exactly what do they contradict?
They can be ignored? :jaw-dropp
Now THAT should be saved on a screen shot.

bje
12th November 2009, 03:28 PM
I have no problem discussing witnesses who claim to have seen an impact.
I´m trying to discern how NOC coupled with an impact are physically possible.
They aren´t.

No one witnessed NOC or a flyover.

TexasJack
12th November 2009, 03:29 PM
DNA mudlark, DNA. How did it get there? How did all the debris get there? This is your legitimate questions? You pick the laughing stock of the truth movement for your legitimate questions? This is comedy gold.

BigAl
12th November 2009, 03:32 PM
But that is the beauty of firsthand eyewitness evidence. It is 100% verifiable with the witness directly. Since none of the witnesses have spoken out against CIT we know for a fact that their testimony was presented accurately.


The testimony of eyewitness is not particularly "beautiful". Each statement has to be considered in the context of all the statements and all the physical evidence. In any fast-moving unprecedented event, some people will get someting wrong.

We have about 150 people that describe things consistent with the physical evidence. The people that say things that are not consistent with the physical evidence can and should be ignored.

mudlark
12th November 2009, 03:33 PM
Of course, you only have faith in the parts that you want to hear. Every one of them says that the plane hit the Pentagon? Well, that just means that they were fooled by the grandest magic trick of all time.

That argument doesn´t explain away the testimony. Every one of them had a view of the alleged impact zone? No.Could they have seen the plane NOC AND an impact? No.

beachnut
12th November 2009, 03:33 PM
So let´s ignore the verified recorded testimony in question and jump to the speculatory discussion? Noted.
For you DNA is speculation as you wave your hands and dismiss real evidence for witness statements made years after the event. Good for you taking hearsay and faulty investigation techniques over reality and hard evidence.

For you the FDR is speculation, as you point to the implied no theory lies of Balsamo and his failed pilot web site with 11.2G failed math still posted.

Tell us all how the DNA for flight 77 passengers was found in the Pentagon and all you have to do to refute it is wave your hands and puke delusions from the idiot investigation team.

Do do a crime because DNA is evidence, and your posts are based on hearsay, faulty investigation techniques and lies. 8 years of failure.

16.5
12th November 2009, 03:37 PM
[QUOTE=mudlark;5304738]Really? Where is the quote?


Of course the notion that they manipulated the video footage or the witnesses themselves to place the plane on the north side is sheer lunacy since most of them illustrated the flight path as well.

But that is the beauty of firsthand eyewitness evidence. It is 100% verifiable with the witness directly. Since none of the witnesses have spoken out against CIT we know for a fact that their testimony was presented accurately.

But CIT has already released the interviews in long form in their supplemental presentations:

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/morevideos.html

You'll see that they are quite long and extremely thorough.

QUOTE]

So you are saying that they won't release the unedited tapes? Interesting. Very interesting. What are they hiding?

Edx
12th November 2009, 03:38 PM
So you are saying that they won't release the unedited tapes? Interesting. Very interesting. What are they hiding?

The word you're loooking for is unsurprising.

mudlark
12th November 2009, 03:40 PM
The testimony of eyewitness is not particularly "beautiful". Each statement has to be considered in the context of all the statements and all the physical evidence. In any fast-moving unprecedented event, some people will get someting wrong.

We have about 150 people that describe things consistent with the physical evidence. The people that say things that are not consistent with the physical evidence can and should be ignored.

150 southside witnesses?
150 impact witnesses?
You´ll have to expand on that breaking headline.
Were these ´150´ in a better or even equal position than the witnesses I have mentioned? More importantly are they corraborative?

Edx
12th November 2009, 03:42 PM
Really Craig, are you that desperate for attention? .

I dont believe Mud is Craig, since Craig and Aldo are both disgusting trolls, Mud doesnt seem to fit their way of arguing, yet.

dtugg
12th November 2009, 03:43 PM
That argument doesn´t explain away the testimony. Every one of them had a view of the alleged impact zone? No.Could they have seen the plane NOC AND an impact? No.

Stop playing games, CITiot. I'm not trying to explain away any "testimony." I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy. You say you have faith in people that were there. But you only have faith in them when they say something that you want to hear. Everything else can be hand waved away. It's hilarious, in a me laughing in your face sort of way.

beachnut
12th November 2009, 03:43 PM
That argument doesn´t explain away the testimony. Every one of them had a view of the alleged impact zone? No.Could they have seen the plane NOC AND an impact? No.
Explain in detail. And please present the reason the FDR is wrong?

Then please debunk all these witnesses you ignore out of ignorace.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary
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.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.

2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

3 took photographs of the aftermath.

Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."

And of course,

0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.




Then please debunk the DNA which you ignore out of ignorace.

Then please debunk the FDR which you ignore out of ignorace.

twinstead
12th November 2009, 03:44 PM
150 southside witnesses?
150 impact witnesses?
You´ll have to expand on that breaking headline.
Were these ´150´ in a better or even equal position than the witnesses I have mentioned? More importantly are they corraborative?

How many witnesses do you have of a flyover of the Pentagon?

Edx
12th November 2009, 03:44 PM
in relation to the wall. He saw a bigass plane heading for him for God´s sake!

Do you actually think this guy had time to find his bearings in a 1-2 second timeframe while running for his life?
Weak.

VERY FUNNY MUD..... I bet you dont understand why though. ;)

BigAl
12th November 2009, 03:44 PM
150 southside witnesses?
150 impact witnesses?
You´ll have to expand on that breaking headline.
Were these ´150´ in a better or even equal position than the witnesses I have mentioned? More importantly are they corraborative?

How many "eyewitnesses" do you have? What do they say that is consistent with the physical evidence?

Here's what I have handy. I assume there is some overlap but so what?


105 eyewitnesses http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/PentWitnesses.xls

Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11_
150 interviews with participants and eye-witnesses

mudlark
12th November 2009, 03:49 PM
So you are saying that they won't release the unedited tapes? Interesting. Very interesting. What are they hiding?

I´ve an idea.
Why don´t you go and ask the witnesses yourself?
Ask them if there was any important deleted footage that actually proves that what they MEANT to say wasn´t portrayed by the editting.
Is that what you´re saying?
I could also ask the ´what are they hiding´ question to the severe lack of documented evidence available from the scene, the withheld video tapes and sequestered 911 calls.
But I won´t. ;)

twinstead
12th November 2009, 03:53 PM
I´ve an idea.
Why don´t you go and ask the witnesses yourself?
Ask them if there was any important deleted footage that actually proves that what they MEANT to say wasn´t portrayed by the editting.
Is that what you´re saying?
I could also ask the ´what are they hiding´ question to the severe lack of documented evidence available from the scene, the withheld video tapes and sequestered 911 calls.
But I won´t. ;)

Are you going to address the posts above concerning eye witnesses and physical evidence that you should debunk, or just say silly stuff like this?

bje
12th November 2009, 03:54 PM
I´ve an idea.
Why don´t you go and ask the witnesses yourself?
Ask them if there was any important deleted footage that actually proves that what they MEANT to say wasn´t portrayed by the editting.
Is that what you´re saying?
I could also ask the ´what are they hiding´ question to the severe lack of documented evidence available from the scene, the withheld video tapes and sequestered 911 calls.
But I won´t. ;)

You mean you have "flyover" eyewitnesses, Mudlark? Who are they?

Mr.Herbert
12th November 2009, 03:54 PM
I´ve an idea.
Why don´t you go and ask the witnesses yourself?
Ask them if there was any important deleted footage that actually proves that what they MEANT to say wasn´t portrayed by the editting[sic].
Is that what you´re saying?
I could also ask the ´what are they hiding´ question to the severe lack of documented evidence available from the scene, the withheld video tapes and sequestered 911 calls.
But I won´t. ;)

Only complete idiots like Craig Ranke and Bloated Aldo spend their money trying to prove a ridiculous fantasy like a flyover.

Do you have the CIT, OC picture hanging above your bunk bed?

Please keep the tone civil. Thank you.

lapman
12th November 2009, 03:55 PM
I have no problem discussing witnesses who claim to have seen an impact.
I´m trying to discern how NOC coupled with an impact are physically possible.
They aren´t.
Therefore, your eyewitnesses are mistaken on the flight path. Since ALL other evidence points to SOC, SOC is the correct path.

TexasJack
12th November 2009, 03:55 PM
I could also ask the ´what are they hiding´ question to the severe lack of documented evidence available from the scene,

You mean like the DNA recovered from the scene, or the photos of the plane debris? That sort of evidence?

lapman
12th November 2009, 03:59 PM
I put my ´faith´ into people who were actually there that day with no axe to grind who were in a position to describe the plane´s approach. Especially if they corraborate from various positions.
This testimony is uncontaminated from ordinary people. That´s why I have ´faith´ in it.
So you can prove that everyone that eyewitnessed the plane SOC had some sort of axe to grind or an agenda? The fact that the interviewers do have an axe to grind as well as want attention and money doesn't phase you?

mudlark
12th November 2009, 03:59 PM
For you DNA is speculation as you wave your hands and dismiss real evidence for witness statements made years after the event. Good for you taking hearsay and faulty investigation techniques over reality and hard evidence.

For you the FDR is speculation, as you point to the implied no theory lies of Balsamo and his failed pilot web site with 11.2G failed math still posted.

Tell us all how the DNA for flight 77 passengers was found in the Pentagon and all you have to do to refute it is wave your hands and puke delusions from the idiot investigation team.

Do do a crime because DNA is evidence, and your posts are based on hearsay, faulty investigation techniques and lies. 8 years of failure.

Any links to the documentation on the DNA retrieval and identification?
Has the FDR been translated by anybody else and if so does it corrolate with testimony not only NOC, but the additional ´Annex witnesses´?
Even the very retrieval of the FDR has lead to contradictory reports.
The time the information was extracted from the FDR, the same.
Who actually found it, the same.
So forgive me if I have little faith in the actual official translation (if there is any I´m unaware of)

lapman
12th November 2009, 04:00 PM
You mean like the DNA recovered from the scene, or the photos of the plane debris? That sort of evidence?
Let's not forget the eyewitnesses to the debris, smell of jet fuel, bodies still in their seats, etc. They don't count because they aren't on the approved list of the CIT cult leaders.

tj15
12th November 2009, 04:01 PM
Mudlark... This guy says it came up 395.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H8CinIWltY

WildCat
12th November 2009, 04:03 PM
That argument doesn´t explain away the testimony. Every one of them had a view of the alleged impact zone? No.Could they have seen the plane NOC AND an impact? No.
If they couldn't see the impact they could surely have seen a large passenger plane climbing rapidly away, yes?

That's the trouble with the complete moron called Craig Ranke, he doesn't think things through.

mudlark
12th November 2009, 04:06 PM
Are you going to address the posts above concerning eye witnesses and physical evidence that you should debunk, or just say silly stuff like this?

I responded to a silly question.
150 witnesses who confirm the official path/story? I can´t discuss witnesses who have not been identified. Or a number plucked from the air.
Physical evidence? Documentation?
Please don´t post photographic evidence as you will get the same reply.
Is anybody going to address the posts and questions I have presented?
Boger´s testimony and it´s overwhelming corraboration?
Scroll up. It´s there.

WildCat
12th November 2009, 04:09 PM
Boger´s testimony and it´s overwhelming corraboration?
Has Boger joined the CiT, or supported them in any way? Have any of your 100% corroborated eyewitnesses supported CiT's conclusions?

16.5
12th November 2009, 04:10 PM
Boger´s testimony and it´s overwhelming corraboration?
Scroll up. It´s there.

Wait, which part?

The part where you called him a liar, or the part where you basically admitted that his placement of the plane was unreliable?

Man, you are not very good at this are you??

Don't let Aldo eat you

dtugg
12th November 2009, 04:11 PM
Of course the CITiot ignores this from Boger:

I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building. It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building.

I wonder why. :rolleyes:

16.5
12th November 2009, 04:15 PM
Of course the CITiot ignores this from Boger:

I wonder why. :rolleyes:

In his defense, the CITiot did not ignore that. He just thinks Boger was a big fat liar.

Funny how the no planer at the Pentagon crowd gets very little traction calling their own witnesses liars.

dtugg
12th November 2009, 04:17 PM
In his defense, the CITiot did not ignore that. He just thinks Boger was a big fat liar.

Funny how the no planer at the Pentagon crowd gets very little traction calling their own witnesses liars.

I must have missed that. Even more hilarious!

mudlark
12th November 2009, 04:19 PM
Let's not forget the eyewitnesses to the debris, smell of jet fuel, bodies still in their seats, etc. They don't count because they aren't on the approved list of the CIT cult leaders.

Again, the undocumented debris.

I´ve always wondered when these ´bodies´ (plural?) were found exactly, and their exact whereabouts.

http://arlingtonfirejournal.blogspot.com/2005/03/attack-on-pentagon-sept-11-2001.html



Reaching the seat of the fire proved difficult. The heat was intense and the flames violent. Jet fuel is a blend of kerosene and gasoline, and Flight 77 was fully laden for the coast-to-coast flight.
Firefighters launched an exterior attack, using ladder pipes, airport crash tenders – all their big guns. They also attempted an interior attack. ``It was back breaking work carrying hose across that debris,’’ said Captain Scott McKay, who supervised interior fire fighting efforts. ``We were passing by some pretty good fires that on any other day would have been a major job to get to the big fire.’’

About 30 minutes after the crash, five floors gave way - COLLAPSE! ``It pancaked,’’ said Arlington Battalion Chief Jim Bonzano.


Gibbs led a crew of Fort Myer and Arlington County firefighters inside with a hose line. Considering the crack in the building, and seeing the firefighters were making little progress against the flames, Gibbs decided there was no need to place the firefighters' lives in jeopardy - and ordered them out. Within five minutes, ``there was a snap. Then you could hear it cascading down,'' Gibbs said.

The first firefighters allegedly arrived at @09:45, at what time did they enter?
We know they pulled out 5 minutes before the collapse having been beaten back by the flames according to Gibbs´quote.
But it was actually 15 minutes before the collapse:

9:55 - Incident commander orders evacuation of impacted areas (9/11 Commission Report, p315).

we received an order to evacuate the area because of reports that another jet was coming up the Potomac.

Then the numerous evacuations took place during that and the following day.

On Sept. 11 and in the days following, Pentagon police ordered firefighters - fearful of another attack - to evacuate when aircraft neared the crash site.
The fire, itself, wouldn’t die.
After the initial inferno was knocked down on Sept. 11, firefighters contended with flames and hot spots at the Pentagon, fed by jet fuel and mountains of rubble. ``It’s just stubborn, very difficult to get to and very difficult to extinguish,’’ said Plaugher, quoted by New York Newsday.


So the firemen you quoted must have seen the sights you describe after the collapse.

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

A study of the locations of fatalities also yields insight into the
breakup of the aircraft and, therefore, its influence on the structure.
The remains of most of the passengers on the aircraft were
found near the end of the travel of the aircraft debris.... By contrast,
the remains of a few individuals (the hijacking suspects), who
most likely were near the front of the aircraft, were found relatively
close to the aircraft’s point of impact with the building.
These data suggest that the front of the aircraft disintegrated
essentially upon impact but, in the process, opened up a hole
allowing the trailing portions of the fuselage to pass into the
building



This report claims that the columns along the path of ´impact´ were
exposed to high temperatures, including ´C´Ring where the majority of bodies were ´found´ where the HIGHEST temperatures were recorded over a longer period.
There were bodies admittedly found to the left and right of this ´path´ but..


Several structural elements in bays adjacent to the path of
aircraft impact in the first floor did not sustain damage by
impact. Rather, the damage to these elements was due to fire
exposure. Because the structural elements in the Pentagon are
believed to have had additional fire protection provided by the
interior finishes—while the laboratory columns were fully
exposed—and because the rate of temperature rise in the actual
fire is believed to be greater than that prescribed by ISO 834,
the comparison is not exact. However, it should provide an
indication of the lower bound of the temperature at some locations
in the Pentagon.

This coincides with an
ambient temperature of about 1,740°F (950°C).

Where in the building were these bodies allegedly found?
When were they found?

I´m in no way saying that these people are liars. Just that testimonies
become polluted and altered by the time they reach us.
That all testimonies must be questioned.

That is why it is so important to verify testimony especially in the circumstances described above.

Timeout guys. Back in a bit.

Edx
12th November 2009, 04:20 PM
What I want to know is if any of CIT have actually told their witness'...

.... hey, you're saying it came North over Citgo, well we're using this in a film to claim that a plane flew over the Pentagon and then the government detonated a bomb and then faked all the bodes and DNA and plane evidence! Will you support us?

... Hmm, Dont recall them ever wanting to do that!

I wonder why!

Edx
12th November 2009, 04:22 PM
Again, the undocumented debris.


Even Legasse said he saw plane parts when he went over and investigated after the impact. Why do you ignore that? Oh thats right, you think Legasse is a big fat liar. You also think he is a liar when he said he light poles get clipped, that one hit a black and orange cab and that the plane hit the pentagon. But many years later when he gets his perspective wrong, nope he is 100% telling the truth!

Edx
12th November 2009, 04:27 PM
I´m in no way saying that these people are liars. Just that testimonies
become polluted and altered by the time they reach us.
That all testimonies must be questioned..

Irony Mud. Irony.

beachnut
12th November 2009, 04:31 PM
Any links to the documentation on the DNA retrieval and identification?
Has the FDR been translated by anybody else and if so does it corrolate with testimony not only NOC, but the additional ´Annex witnesses´?
Even the very retrieval of the FDR has lead to contradictory reports.
The time the information was extracted from the FDR, the same.
Who actually found it, the same.
So forgive me if I have little faith in the actual official translation (if there is any I´m unaware of)
The Navy had close oversight over the DNA because the terrorists you make excuses for killed Navy personnel and now you spew lies about the event. Does shallow research always accompany asking questions and spewing delusions? Why can't you find real evidence?

The FDR was decoded by p4t, NTSB and Warren. All three decodes verify each other and all the parameters do match the witness statements, too bad you can't do a proper analysis since all you do is post moronic delusions of an overflight.


So you have zero evidence to refute the DNA, zero to refute the FDR, and zero to refute all the witnesses.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary
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.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.

2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

3 took photographs of the aftermath.

Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."

And of course,

0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.
When will you debunk all 136 witnesses. When will you debunk the FDR and DNA. NEVER

tj15
12th November 2009, 04:31 PM
Mudlark... Explain this guy... Tim Timmerman (a pilot).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzBmgsjC6Nc

DavidJames
12th November 2009, 04:41 PM
I dont believe Mud is Craig, since Craig and Aldo are both disgusting trolls, Mud doesnt seem to fit their way of arguing, yet.I don't know who he is but he's not your basic drive by 9/11 CTist. His focus is the CIT myth, which he's fully embraced. Most new CTists quickly veer of course and start rambling about other facets of 9/11, not Mud.

He uses all the CIT terminology, talking points and rebuttals. He's not someone who stumbled upon the CIT crap and came here to talk about it. His post volume and speed suggests he knows this stuff inside and out and not someone who spends time researching elsewhere.

The CIT cult is small, but as we've seen over the years persistent. How many 9/11 CTists have come here and focused exclusively, in detail, on CIT stuff that turned out not to be one of the main players in CIT?

WildCat
12th November 2009, 04:52 PM
How many 9/11 CTists have come here and focused exclusively, in detail, on CIT stuff that turned out not to be one of the main players in CIT?
Oh oh oh oh! I know!

All of them!

mudlark
12th November 2009, 04:53 PM
The FDR was decoded by p4t, NTSB and Warren. All three decodes verify each other and all the parameters do match the witness statements, too bad you can't do a proper analysis since all you do is post moronic delusions of an overflight.


Did the plane fly over the Navy Annex in all 3 translations?

Have you links to the documentation of the DNA?

104 witnesses to an impact??
Old, debunked disinfo.

mudlark
12th November 2009, 04:58 PM
Mudlark... Explain this guy... Tim Timmerman (a pilot).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzBmgsjC6Nc

Is this the guy with the panoramic view of almost the entire flight of the plane from the Navy Annex?

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/timmVig.gif

Do you see the lawn in front of the Pentagon?
How long do you think he saw the plane at this point? At what point did he see it enter the lawn?
Do you really think he saw the plane ´desintegrate on the lawn´ before it ´impacted´?

stewieg
12th November 2009, 05:00 PM
Everyone here knows what CIT is all about. It's nothing but the paranoid fantasies of two goofs who suffer from delusions of grandeur. They have yet to interview anyone who saw anything other than a 757 hit the Pentagon. When people disagree with them they resort to threats and intimidation, i.e their enemies list.

BigAl
12th November 2009, 05:05 PM
Did the plane fly over the Navy Annex in all 3 translations?

Have you links to the documentation of the DNA?


DNA:

http://www.dcmilitary.com/dcmilitary_archives/stories/112901/12279-1.shtml

Note the date, Nov 2001. Not all the bodies had been identified yet.

mudlark
12th November 2009, 05:05 PM
I don't know who he is but he's not your basic drive by 9/11 CTist. His focus is the CIT myth, which he's fully embraced. Most new CTists quickly veer of course and start rambling about other facets of 9/11, not Mud.

He uses all the CIT terminology, talking points and rebuttals. He's not someone who stumbled upon the CIT crap and came here to talk about it. His post volume and speed suggests he knows this stuff inside and out and not someone who spends time researching elsewhere.

The CIT cult is small, but as we've seen over the years persistent. How many 9/11 CTists have come here and focused exclusively, in detail, on CIT stuff that turned out not to be one of the main players in CIT?

The reason I´m sticking to this testimony is because the thread was started with the question ´Has Lagasse´s testimony been debunked?´
I´m simply not going off-topic.
It´s no big mystery and frankly doesn´t matter who I am.
I´m in no ´cult´ and know so much about CIT´s work because I have studied it myself.
I do not talk for CIT, Aldo, or Craig.
I´ve avoided insulting people who have continually insulted me in this thread and whose comments have no bearing on the topic.
I WILL be reporting from here on in. Childish insults have no place on a board discussing such a serious issue.
I´m not accusing you personally btw. Just sticking it in this post.

Peace.

dtugg
12th November 2009, 05:06 PM
i.e their enemies list.

That's probably the most hilariously pathetic thing in the history of ever. I'm proud to be on it although all I really had to do was give them a picture of me and ask them to put me on the list.

mud, what do you think about the CITiots' enemies list?

Edx
12th November 2009, 05:08 PM
I don't know who he is but he's not your basic drive by 9/11 CTist. His focus is the CIT myth, which he's fully embraced. Most new CTists quickly veer of course and start rambling about other facets of 9/11, not Mud.

He uses all the CIT terminology, talking points and rebuttals. He's not someone who stumbled upon the CIT crap and came here to talk about it. His post volume and speed suggests he knows this stuff inside and out and not someone who spends time researching elsewhere.

The CIT cult is small, but as we've seen over the years persistent. How many 9/11 CTists have come here and focused exclusively, in detail, on CIT stuff that turned out not to be one of the main players in CIT?

Oh Im sure he is a CIT cultist, I'm saying I think he probably isnt Craig and Aldo. They seem to be a lot more vicious.

Edx
12th November 2009, 05:11 PM
Do you see the lawn in front of the Pentagon?
How long do you think he saw the plane at this point? At what point did he see it enter the lawn?
Do you really think he saw the plane ´desintegrate on the lawn´ before it ´impacted´?


I cant see anything well because your video is too crappy.

BigAl
12th November 2009, 05:12 PM
The reason I´m sticking to this testimony is because the thread was started with the question ´Has Lagasse´s testimony been debunked?´


100+ tons of aircraft wreckage that can only be Flight 77 and identified bodies that can only be the people that boarded Flight 77 earlier that morning, all found inside the Pentagon kind of trumps a few people that say they saw something inconsistent with the physical evidence.

tj15
12th November 2009, 05:13 PM
Is this the guy with the panoramic view of almost the entire flight of the plane from the Navy Annex?

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/timmVig.gif

Do you see the lawn in front of the Pentagon?
How long do you think he saw the plane at this point? At what point did he see it enter the lawn?
Do you really think he saw the plane ´desintegrate on the lawn´ before it ´impacted´?
He is a pilot and is absolutely sure it was an AA plane. I guess that rules out the "white plane" idea. He said it followed Columbia pike. That also makes him a south of Citgo witness.

How about Mark Petitt? He also says it came up 395.

tj15
12th November 2009, 05:16 PM
I cant see anything well because your video is too crappy.
I agree... Mudlark, please post a better picture from that location.

dtugg
12th November 2009, 05:17 PM
Also prove that it's the same view Timmerman had. Thanks.

bje
12th November 2009, 05:18 PM
The reason I´m sticking to this testimony is because the thread was started with the question ´Has Lagasse´s testimony been debunked?´
I´m simply not going off-topic.
It´s no big mystery and frankly doesn´t matter who I am.
I´m in no ´cult´ and know so much about CIT´s work because I have studied it myself.
I do not talk for CIT, Aldo, or Craig.
I´ve avoided insulting people who have continually insulted me in this thread and whose comments have no bearing on the topic.
I WILL be reporting from here on in. Childish insults have no place on a board discussing such a serious issue.
I´m not accusing you personally btw. Just sticking it in this post.

Peace.

So don't be afraid to tell us what you think happened with AA77's flight path.

Did AA77 hit the Pentagon?
Did AA77 fly over the Pentagon?

Just give us your reasons and evidence for one or the other.

Crazytimes
12th November 2009, 05:18 PM
So let´s ignore the verified recorded testimony in question and jump to the speculatory discussion? Noted.

If over 100 people say they saw something and 3 say they saw something else, who are you going to believe.

We KNOW they are wrong because the plane did hit the pentagon. What is your problem here ?

stewieg
12th November 2009, 05:21 PM
The reason I´m sticking to this testimony is I do not talk for CIT, Aldo, or Craig.
I´ve avoided insulting people who have continually insulted me in this thread and whose comments have no bearing on the topic.
I WILL be reporting from here on in. Childish insults have no place on a board discussing such a serious issue.
I´m not accusing you personally btw. Just sticking it in this post.

Peace.

Have you ever called Craig and Aldo to task, assuming you are not Craig or Aldo, on the threats and name calling they direct towards people they disagree with?

tj15
12th November 2009, 05:22 PM
Does anyone have a list of witnesses that specifically put the plane south of Citgo? That would really help the debate.

mudlark
12th November 2009, 05:34 PM
Mudlark... Explain this guy... Tim Timmerman (a pilot).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzBmgsjC6Nc

Before I forget (kinda bogged down here) nobody knew that Hugh "Tim" Timmerman was really Dawn Vignola's roomate on 9/11 until Dawn Vignola told this to CIT firsthand. You can actually hear Timmerman coaching Vignola what to say during this interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh2iFhTYX5s

Vignola let CIT into her apartment to document their POV. While Timmerman claimed it was AA Vignola claimed the plane was "white". If you don't believe them, call Vignola yourself and prove them wrong.

She's listed.

mudlark
12th November 2009, 05:36 PM
Have you ever called Craig and Aldo to task, assuming you are not Craig or Aldo, on the threats and name calling they direct towards people they disagree with?

Threats? No.
Name calling? Follow this thread from I joined the debate. Lots of uncalled for name calling going on here.

Edx
12th November 2009, 05:37 PM
Hey mud, you didnt answer anyones questions didn you?

dtugg
12th November 2009, 05:38 PM
Anybody find it amazing how much mud knows about the CITiots?

Edx
12th November 2009, 05:39 PM
You can actually hear Timmerman coaching Vignola what to say during this interview:

I listened, that is what you're calling coaching?

I hear people talk like that all the time when people are on the phone. For christs sakes, Ive done that before! It doesnt mean Im feeding them information!

And if he had been, again, why are these shills so damn stupid to make it so damn obvious!

Apparently you must believe in the genius idiots conspiracy theory (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=158841).

mudlark
12th November 2009, 05:43 PM
So don't be afraid to tell us what you think happened with AA77's flight path.

Did AA77 hit the Pentagon?
Did AA77 fly over the Pentagon?

Just give us your reasons and evidence for one or the other.

Given the NOC testimony? I would have to say the plane could NOT have hit the Pentagon. It doesn´t matter what I ´think´ on the matter.
If it couldn´t hit where did it go?
Have you looked at Roosevelt Roberts, Eric Dihle, Maria de la Cerda, the 404ed Statter witnesses, Dewitt Roseborough and a Mr Gurba interviewed live on ABC that morning?
Have we ever heard the sequestered 911 calls surrounding the Arlington area?

Given the failure to debunk NOC serious questions arose for me. Coupled with the above witnesses there is definitely a case to answer.

Baylor
12th November 2009, 05:45 PM
I´m trying to discern how NOC coupled with an impact are physically possible.
How are they not physically possible. The plane hit the pentagon.

See...H285_DWX_bQ

Edx
12th November 2009, 05:45 PM
Have you looked at Roosevelt Roberts.

omg srlsy?

dtugg
12th November 2009, 05:46 PM
there is definitely a case to answer.

Not to sane people.
Edited to remove personal remarks.

mudlark
12th November 2009, 05:48 PM
I listened, that is what you're calling coaching?

I hear people talk like that all the time when people are on the phone. For christs sakes, Ive done that before! It doesnt mean Im feeding them information!

And if he had been, again, why are these shills so damn stupid to make it so damn obvious!

Apparently you must believe in the genius idiots conspiracy theory (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=158841).

She repeated him word for word for God sake! Lol.
I´d call that coaching.
No one, certainly not me has accused anybody of being a shill.
I question whether he was capable or not of describing what he publically stated regarding the flight with the view that he had from his appartment.
Dawn Vignola had the same view. He put the words in her mouth during that interview.
It doesn´t necessarily follow that I´m pointing a finger at her or his honesty. Just the situation.

TexasJack
12th November 2009, 05:50 PM
Anybody find it amazing how much mud knows about the CITiots?

Yep, taking it right out of the CIT playbook. This is rather hilarious, but typical, truther M.O. Start off posting a few inane posts, claiming to only want to ask a few legitimate, questions, then bring on an onslaught of garbage.

mudlark
12th November 2009, 05:50 PM
Anybody find it amazing how much mud knows about the CITiots?

I´ve studied their findings. What is your point?

stewieg
12th November 2009, 05:51 PM
Threats? No.
Name calling? Follow this thread from I joined the debate. Lots of uncalled for name calling going on here.

Then why hav'nt you taken them to task about the threats they make? Seems to be much more serious than name calling.

BigAl
12th November 2009, 05:52 PM
Anybody find it amazing how much mud knows about the CITiots?

And how little he knows of the entire set of eyewitnesses and all the physical evidence.

mudlark
12th November 2009, 05:53 PM
Yep, taking it right out of the CIT playbook. This is rather hilarious, but typical, truther M.O. Start off posting a few inane posts, claiming to only want to ask a few legitimate, questions, then bring on an onslaught of garbage.

´garbage´ that noone here has debunked yet.
Insults and no rebuttals.

dtugg
12th November 2009, 05:54 PM
I´ve studied their findings. What is your point?

Edited for civility

If you want to report someone for being a sockpuppet, please do so. Do not accuse people of being sockpuppets in threads. Thank you.

Baylor
12th November 2009, 05:55 PM
´garbage´ that noone here has debunked yet.
Insults and no rebuttals.
CIT claims the plane flew over the pentagon
The plane did not fly over the pentagon

See
H285_DWX_bQ
Debunked.

dtugg
12th November 2009, 05:56 PM
´garbage´ that noone here has debunked yet.
Insults and no rebuttals.

All of witnesses (including CITiot's) say the plane hit the Pentagon. 100% of the physical evidence points to the plane hitting the Pentagon on the "official" path.

There. Debunked. That was easy.

Edx
12th November 2009, 05:56 PM
She repeated him word for word for God sake! Lol.
I´d call that coaching.

Yep, seen that as well.

I worked in a call centre for 2 years and this has personally happened to me several times. This sounds perfectly normal to me.

No one, certainly not me has accused anybody of being a shill.

Lies!

You said Timmerman is lying because he couldnt see the plane hit then he was "coaching" Vignola on what to say.

Why was he lying Mudlark?

You sound exactly like Cartman in this episode of South Park. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSZZJJynJU4)

I question whether he was capable or not of describing what he publically stated regarding the flight with the view that he had from his appartment.

You have not demonstrated he couldnt see nor have you demonstrated that he was coaching anyone.

Dawn Vignola had the same view. He put the words in her mouth during that interview.

In no way does it sound like that at all, once again you call him a shill and a liar.

It doesn´t necessarily follow that I´m pointing a finger at her or his honesty. Just the situation.

I do not directly say shes a slut... you didnt read the rest, dude! ..."or does she?"...See thats a question, Im asking questions Stan!

Yes you have as much sense and honesty as Cartman, and he isnt even real.

mudlark
12th November 2009, 05:57 PM
How are they not physically possible. The plane hit the pentagon.

See...H285_DWX_bQ

Again?
Grainy low quality videos are weak.
Any videos released have the same theme. Guess where the plane is from horrible, obscured angles that leave more questions than answers.
Weak.

Mr.Herbert
12th November 2009, 05:57 PM
´garbage´ that noone here has debunked yet.
Insults and no rebuttals.

Hey, no-planer. CAN YOU READ?

EVERY CIT witness that was in a position to do so... SAW THE PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON!!!!

Why don't you see if Aldo, Craig, and Balsamo need a pivot man for their tree-fort circle jerk.

Baylor
12th November 2009, 05:59 PM
Again?
Grainy low quality videos are weak.
Any videos released have the same theme. Guess where the plane is from horrible, obscured angles that leave more questions than answers.
Weak.

CIT predicted the footage would show the plane flying over the pentagon. The footage did not show the plane flying over the pentagon. Debunked.

Edx
12th November 2009, 05:59 PM
Hey, no-planer. CAN YOU READ?

EVERY CIT witness that was in a position to do so... SAW THE PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON!!!.

And no one saw the plane fly over, why would the conspiractors risk that Mudlark?

Why are they such genius' to be able to pull this all off, yet such morons as to hire someone like Lloyd and Timmerman that are so bad are being shills (according to CIT)?

Yup, you believe they are genius' and morons at the exact same time. How do you do that?

stewieg
12th November 2009, 06:02 PM
´garbage´ that noone here has debunked yet.
Insults and no rebuttals.

Oh my. CIT provides not a single shread of evidence to prove that something other than a 757 hit the Pentagon. Yet you seem to believe the CIT fantasy. Craig and Aldo make threats against not only debunkers but other truthers yet you whine about insults here at JREF. Like I said before, what's more serious, insults or threats?

mudlark
12th November 2009, 06:02 PM
Yep, seen that as well.




Lies!

You said Timmerman is lying because he couldnt see the plane hit then he was "coaching" Vignola on what to say.

Why was he lying Mudlark?]

When did I say he was lying??
I questioned his testimony based on what he could ACTUALLY see from his window. Was that not a fair comment I made?
Do YOU believe he could make such a detailed account with his POV??

You have not demonstrated he couldnt see nor have you demonstrated that he was coaching anyone.

I believe that I have. YOU tell me how he made out so much with that window view.

The rest is pure bull. And you know it.

mudlark
12th November 2009, 06:06 PM
Hey, no-planer. CAN YOU READ?

EVERY CIT witness that was in a position to do so... SAW THE PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON!!!!

Why don't you see if Aldo, Craig, and Balsamo need a pivot man for their tree-fort circle jerk.

Are you blind?
I answered your post or one with the exact same statement.
How is an impact POSSIBLE FROM NOC?

tj15
12th November 2009, 06:07 PM
Before I forget (kinda bogged down here) nobody knew that Hugh "Tim" Timmerman was really Dawn Vignola's roomate on 9/11 until Dawn Vignola told this to CIT firsthand. You can actually hear Timmerman coaching Vignola what to say during this interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh2iFhTYX5s

Vignola let CIT into her apartment to document their POV. While Timmerman claimed it was AA Vignola claimed the plane was "white". If you don't believe them, call Vignola yourself and prove them wrong.

She's listed.
"Coaching" her? He was simply giving her information about what he saw so that she could relay that information to the media.

To an untrained eye (Vignola), the plane might appear white (reflections ect.). But Timmerman is a pilot. And he was pretty sure it was an AA plane. Do you think Timmerman lied?

Baylor
12th November 2009, 06:07 PM
Are you blind?
I answered your post or one with the exact same statement.
How is an impact POSSIBLE FROM NOC?

If it flew North or South it still hit the pentagon, as CIT has proved.

dtugg
12th November 2009, 06:08 PM
Are you blind?
I answered your post or one with the exact same statement.
How is an impact POSSIBLE FROM NOC?

The plane didn't fly NOC, CITiot.

Edx
12th November 2009, 06:09 PM
I questioned his testimony based on what he could ACTUALLY see from his window. Was that not a fair comment I made?

You say he couldnt see what he said he saw and that he was "coaching" and "feeding information" to someone to make it look like someone else saw something you say neither of them could see, and you think I am making an leap by saying you are clearly calling him a shill? How can you not see that?



Do YOU believe he could make such a detailed account with his POV??
Give me better video, I cant even verify that is his view.

I believe that I have. YOU tell me how he made out so much with that window view.


Yes from the positon far back in the room with a camera whip panning from one direction to the other, it does seem hard to see anything. But we cant tell what he could or could not have seen without better video now can we?


The rest is pure bull. And you know it.

In that clip Stan gets pissed with Cartman because he wrote a book saying Wendy was a slut, but he says he never "directly" called her a slut, he's "just asking questions". That is exactly what you're doing.