8 out of 8 at Citgo station

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by ihaunter

Not ironic at all, because anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of how magic tricks are performed could tell you that CIT's "magic trick" would never work as described.

Apparently you don't have that knowledge, otherwise you wouldn't talk in subjunctive, right? "That" is not enough. And even if you did, you would have to come up with a better explanation for the eyewitness testimonies which are the topic of this thread.

[UNLoVedRebel]

I wanted to report my success to "Citizen Investigation Team" but the "report" part of its website is still "under construction" and has been for two years. How seriously do Waldo and Craig take this **** if they can't even get their website functional in under 730 days?

This area is "under construction", but it will eventually be a place for you to report the outcome of your Operation Accountability efforts. For now please contact us via e-mail with any information. Thank you.

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

[...] the single convergent item in the testimony of witnesses : that the plane impacted the Pentagon and that those who mention where it hit all have it hit low on the structure. :::?

btw, the second part of your italic sentence is again patently false and shows lack of knowledge or dishonesty. This is now my 362nd post in this thread and as I said on the last page: If anybody is interested in my opinion and/or the topic itself, read it. Thanks and bye until news arrives.

[UNLoVedRebel]

More information about the juggernaut website that has taken the world by storm.

"Citizeninvestigationteam.com has a three-month global Alexa traffic rank of 2,285,198. Visitors to the site view an average of 1.8 unique pages per day. The site has a bounce rate of roughly 63% (i.e., 63% of visits consist of only one pageview). Visitors to the site spend approximately 81 seconds on each pageview and a total of three minutes on the site during each visit. Search engines refer about 17% of visits to Citizeninvestigationteam.com."

[UNLoVedRebel]

My favorite part of their website is the "strategy" section. Such a charasmatic figure, that Craig Ranke.

Stage 4: If you still haven’t received a response by your declared deadline, send them a final letter telling them that you are deeply disappointed that they have failed to respond appropriately and informing them that their failure to respond has been documented and will be published. The same can apply even if you have received a response and they simply refuse to act on the information. Such a failure to act on the part of politicians and authority figures is particularly problematic for them since their inaction to the information is tantamount to the crimes of obstruction of justice, misprision of treason, and misprision of a felony. Since this is the final letter, remind them of this with one final request for a response.

What a jackass.

[16.5]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Apparently you don't have that knowledge, otherwise you wouldn't talk in subjunctive, right? "That" is not enough. And even if you did, you would have to come up with a better explanation for the eyewitness testimonies which are the topic of this thread.

I came up with an "explanation" for your heroes' little videos a long time ago:

your heroes are grossly misrepresenting the witnesses' story.

They were busted by the Paik lie, and the mutts refuse to release the raw video.

Not that it matters anymore, except for your incessant spamming of the D-Bags last video, nobody gives a ****.

Thanks and bye until "news arrives"? Hilarious! Well, BYE forever spammer.

Let us know when the Buffet Slayer releases the raw vids, until then BYE!

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

btw, the second part of your italic sentence is again patently false and shows lack of knowledge or dishonesty. This is now my 362nd post in this thread and as I said on the last page: If anybody is interested in my opinion and/or the topic itself, read it. Thanks and bye until news arrives.

Really? nah, I am not interested in "opinion" CE I am interested in exactly what I say I am interested in.

Did anyone say that the aircraft hit or was about to hit an upper storey of the structure or did all who mention where it hit say it hit low down or actually contacted the ground at the base of the building?http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1906

Did anyone other than the discredited Turcois say that the plane was rising as it approached the Pentagon? Certainly was'nt the person with the best view of what occured at the Pentagon, Boger.

Hey,,, if I am wrong then by all means correct me.. Of course by that I mean give evidence that I am wrong rather than simply posting "You're wrong jaydeehess!".

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

The answer is in the first few minutes of NSA and, as I told you before, prominent throughout the presentation. They don't dismiss or discount it, and they certainly don't ignore it. They say it was a deception. A "magic" trick. It's really ironic that this concept seems so difficult to understand on the James Randi Educational Foundation Forum, of all places.

BINGO!!!!

The CiT takes the single most convergent point made by eyewitnesses and says,,,,, "they were all fooled". Yes, a 'magic trick' is the path by which the CiT choose to discount and dismiss the testimony of eyewitnesses.

Odd since the CiT also claim that eyewitness testimony is tantamount to smoking gun evidence when they claim a path other than that shown by the physical eveidence .... oh never mind that several of their "NoC" witnesses can be shown to actually be describing a path that would take the plane "SoC" and that others describe a path(Middleton) that would put the aircraft on a path that other witnesses simply could not have seen at all, never mind that they so utterly twist and manipulate Paik's testimony(he could not see the Annex, he points south, he was actually inside his shop when he saw the plane)
)

Not only were they fooled into thinking the plane hit the Pentagon they were alsoi somehow fooled into believeing that it hit low down on the structure when indeed it was 70+ feet above the building.

Oh, and not only did they fool the people who watched the plane they also managed to not have anyone anywhere else witness the supposed flyover. Shades of Start Wars,,, "this is not the plane you are looking at",,, or perhaps this was designed by the Bene Gesserit, sand worms anyone? Then again Herbert writes better fiction than the CiT.

,,, and of course all the witnesses in Manhattan were also fooled into thinking planes hit the towers.. At least according to no-planers which puts the CiT in the same genre as the Manhattan no-planers.




Yes indeedy the CiT places eyewitness testimony , when its at its most divergent, as having prime importance, but completely dismisses it when its at its most convergent.
Explains why when I type define: "confirmation bias" into Bing it returns a link to the CiT website (kidding of course

[ihaunter]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

BINGO!!!!

The CiT takes the single most convergent point made by eyewitnesses and says,,,,, "they were all fooled". Yes, a 'magic trick' is the path by which the CiT choose to discount and dismiss the testimony of eyewitnesses.

Odd since the CiT also claim that eyewitness testimony is tantamount to smoking gun evidence when they claim a path other than that shown by the physical eveidence .... oh never mind that several of their "NoC" witnesses can be shown to actually be describing a path that would take the plane "SoC" and that others describe a path(Middleton) that would put the aircraft on a path that other witnesses simply could not have seen at all, never mind that they so utterly twist and manipulate Paik's testimony(he could not see the Annex, he points south, he was actually inside his shop when he saw the plane)
)

Not only were they fooled into thinking the plane hit the Pentagon they were alsoi somehow fooled into believeing that it hit low down on the structure when indeed it was 70+ feet above the building.

Oh, and not only did they fool the people who watched the plane they also managed to not have anyone anywhere else witness the supposed flyover. Shades of Start Wars,,, "this is not the plane you are looking at",,, or perhaps this was designed by the Bene Gesserit, sand worms anyone? Then again Herbert writes better fiction than the CiT.

,,, and of course all the witnesses in Manhattan were also fooled into thinking planes hit the towers.. At least according to no-planers which puts the CiT in the same genre as the Manhattan no-planers.




Yes indeedy the CiT places eyewitness testimony , when its at its most divergent, as having prime importance, but completely dismisses it when its at its most convergent.
Explains why when I type define: "confirmation bias" into Bing it returns a link to the CiT website (kidding of course

Excellent post. The narrow viewing angle is probably the most devastating aspect of this as a "magic trick." There are other issues, but, the whole "magic trick" line really is just an excuse to further cherry-pick the claims of their already cherry-picked witnesses, isn't it? It falls apart before we even need to get to the technical stuff. Their eyewitnesses are infallible, except when they were fooled.

[Grizzly Bear]

Originally Posted by 16.5

I came up with an "explanation" for your heroes' little videos a long time ago:

your heroes are grossly misrepresenting the witnesses' story.

Countless people, have mentioned that, myself included with numerous others... If their panhandling of this fly-over lie is genuine, that makes them utterly, stupendously, oblivious and fraught with double standards with respect to their treatment of eye witness testimony. Anything else makes them pretty much full blown frauds, and liars who've done nothing but slander people. :\

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

the single convergent item in the testimony of witnesses : that the plane impacted the Pentagon and that those who mention where it hit all have it hit low on the structure. :::?

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

the second part of your italic sentence is again patently false

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Did anyone other than the discredited Turcois say that the plane was rising as it approached the Pentagon?

Readers, notice how the discredited jaydeehess goes from "everybody says it hit low" to "does anybody but that guy say it was rising" in the blink of an eye without giving a single example for his former claim. Truely bizarre.

[BCR]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Readers, notice how the discredited jaydeehess goes from "everybody says it hit low" to "does anybody but that guy say it was rising" in the blink of an eye without giving a single example for his former claim. Truely bizarre.

Oh, you mean the discredited witness who lied and said he ran towards and up the embankment but instead turned and ran inside the station?

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by ihaunter

. Their eyewitnesses are infallible, except when they were fooled.

That boils it down pretty well. The rest is detail such as the 'infallible' part of testimony puts the aircraft all over the map.

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by BCR

Oh, you mean the discredited witness who lied and said he ran towards and up the embankment but instead turned and ran inside the station?

No, my statement was about jaydeehess, not about the man who gave an unmistakenly clear account of what he saw and was smeared for it by the likes of achimspok and you.

[twinstead]

Witnesses schmitnesses. What a silly debate. That's why real investigators look at the entire body of evidence, both physical and eye witness, to come up with a conclusion about what happened.

This all points to pretty much what everybody else already knows. There's a reason why it's called the commonly-held narrative.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Readers, notice how the discredited jaydeehess goes from "everybody says it hit low" to "does anybody but that guy say it was rising" in the blink of an eye without giving a single example for his former claim. Truely bizarre.

They might also notice that you have completely misrepresented what I did say. Not to mention that I have said it many times in several threads.

I have stated that everyone who makes a statement about where it hit says it hit low down on the building or even that it hit the ground at the base of the structure, a structure that is 70+ feet tall and which you would have us believe the aircraft was flying over.

I then asked if there was anyone but the discredited Turcois who says that the plane was rising. At least this might give some small credence to your claim that the plane went over the Pentagon but no,, there is no one other than Turcois who is seen on video running in the opposite direction and could not have seen what he said he saw from where he said he was.
I have also mentioned that Turcois actually described a plane that went down below his line of sight past the embankment AFTER it supposedly rose up slightly to go over the bank, and that he never saw the plane again, just the fireball. SO EVEN IF Turcois was not the person seen running towards the station he still describes an aircraft that went DOWN as it passed the highway, and although he was still watching he NEVER saw the plane again.It would be extremly foolish to fly a plane through a fireball, especially one containing bits and pieces of a concrete structure and if it had risen up and over prior to the fireball Turcois would have to have stopped to tie his shoes to have missed this.

Morin, ran out into the parking area of the Annex and says he SAW the aircraft go down until all he could see was the vertical stabilizer over the trees (the only trees he could see from this point are all SOUTH of the CITGO station) and he watched and then saw the fireball bloom. He did NOT see the aircraft rise up again. It would be extremly foolish to fly a plane through a fireball, especially one containing bits and pieces of a concrete structure and if it had risen up and over prior to the fireball Morin would have to have stopped to tie his shoes to have missed this.

Then there is Boger who had the absolute best viewing angle for what occured to his left and only several dozen feet away. He watched the plane approach accross the lawn and did he see the plane, increasingly in profile as it comes accross the grass, rising? No, instead he says he watched it IMPACT the Pentagon and heard it continuing into the structure. The CiT then simply dismiss Boger's testimony of impact by telling us he must have lied aout it.

Middleton also IIRC says he saw the plane hit the Pentagon, though his description of the path it took to the Pentagon cannot be correct as it would preclude Morin and Paik and others from having seen the plane at all.


IN FACT everyone who was in position to see it says that the plane impacted the Pentagon AND the few who describe where it hit say it hit low down. (sorry I do not recall the names of those who describe low down or ground hits but I am sure CE knows that this did occur. After all he has been following the Pentagon story so very closely for the last several years) There are NO witnesses who say it hit or that they thought it would hit, an upper storey. There are NO witnesses who say the plane was doing anything other than descending or flying level and low. I also cannot give examples of the NO witnesses who say that it was going to hit high up.

This is not David Copperfield 'magic' then. No, this is Merlin 'magic'.


I have also said in the past that the CiT would be better served to claim that he plane was utilising ET technology and that the plane actually flew at the Pentagon then instituted a dimensional shift that had it continue through the molecular structure of the Pentagon, the crust of the Earth and only returned to this plane of existance once it reached the Bermuda triangle. The CiT could have called it "The Event" and sold the story to NBC.

[16.5]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

No, my statement was about jaydeehess, not about the man who gave an unmistakenly clear account of what he saw and was smeared for it by the likes of achimspok and you.

HAHAHA!!!!

CIT's latest bestest buddy accusing someone else of attacking a witness who gave a an unmistakenly clear account of what he saw and was smeared for it?

Bwhahaha!

Hey CE, Lloyde England called, he said to leave you message that you are an incredible hypocrite, particularly for standing up for two of the of the worst frauds in America.

Hey CE, see the raw tapes yet, champ?

Oh right, you don't give a ****.

Good for you, hypocrite.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by 16.5

CIT's latest bestest buddy accusing someone else of attacking a witness who gave a an unmistakenly clear account of what he saw and was smeared for it?


Hey CE, Lloyde England called, he said to leave you message that you are an incredible hypocrite, particularly for standing up for two of the of the worst frauds in America.


Good for you, hypocrite.

I too was struck by CE getting weepy about the discrediting of Turcois considering the absolute slander and manipulation the CiT have engaged in concerning Mr. England.

While the CiT slander Lloyd based on their personal incredulity that a lamp post could cause the damage to his car as seen and pick apart his statements all the while pretending to befriend him, it is objective and impersonal video evidence by which we discredit Turcois's storey.

[jaydeehess]

I thought it better fit here

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

The CIA trained terrorists to hijack aircraft but they did not have these people actually fly aircraft into buildings (at least not the Pentagon), is that your senario CE?

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

They were building the legend for you to believe in. Scenario.

Thank you for the spelling lesson, CE. Duly noted as it was a while ago when I was corrected in my spelling of 'acceleration', which I had been doubling the 'l' rather than the 'c'.

Now perhaps you will flesh out this scenario for us.

The CIA trained terrorists to fly planes. One can certainly assume said terrorists were expecting that this skill was to be utilised when they took command of an airliner after it had been hijacked rather than simply a carreer change.

So the CIA was preparing said terrorists for a hijacking attempt and by all indications, on Sept 11/01 these hijackings actually occured,

the CIA trained terrorists now at the controls, the supposed real conspirators then orchestrated a hugh and complicated plan to substitute a different plane for the hijacked AA Flt 77,

the real flight 77 was then spirited away somewhere else and the patsy hijackers and all on board 'disposed' of by some unknown means, its flightpath to this secret disposal not witnessed by anyone on the ground or watching radar screens,

and fake Flt 77 impact with the Pentagon by flying the substitute at the Pentagon then up and over

while pulling off a 'magic trick' that has all witnesses of the fake plane believe that it hit the Pentagon and that had any possible witness anywhere else not see the aircraft pulling up and over a 70 foot tall building.

The 'faked' impact then also saw aircraft parts and bodies planted throughout the Pentagon destruction, some still in their seats,

'faked' clipped lamp standards were planted or caused to topple but as part of the 'magic trick' no one actually saw the posts being planted or toppling for no apparent reason,

the damage to the structure saw 100 feet (the approx width of the wingspan of a 757) of the ground floor wall destroyed and not have this debris deposited outward from the structure,

a nice detail was arranged when the gen-set parked nearby was damaged and saw it move towards the Pentagon to fake its having been clipped by something travelling towards the building,

the damage to the second floor wall was created closely matching an outline of the fuselage of a 757.

That pretty much it CE. Any details you'd like to add? Corrections?

Now its probably just me but it would seem much less complicated to train these terrorists to command a hijacked plane and send it on a suicide mission to attack the Pentagon and just let the chips fall where they may.

Obviously these conspiracists could not care less about collatteral damage in either installation or personell and the patsy hijackers on the aircraft would die, the country would mourn those killed in the a/c and in the building, the country would see this as an attack on its military power and blame the pasty hijackers.
Even if the hijacker/pilot completely misses the Pentagon its still an attack on the USA and the actual target would still obviously have been something in the Virginia/D.C. area (Pentagon/Whitehouse/Capital/CIA, etc.)
,,, and if the hijacker pilot takes out Pentagon Chiefs or Rummy himself, well they just become martyrs to the cause of getting the USA more militarily into the middle east.



Which is a good segway into the make up of the patsy hijackers. Saudis by and large. Now the whole conspiracy supposed was to give the USA an excuse to go into the Middle east, specifically , Iraq. Yet there were no Iraqis among the hijackers, nor any Afghanis. Al-Qada was blamed, we were told they were led by OBL who was in Afghanistan, yet the suposed conspirators thought it not relevent to bolster these great lies by claiming or planting a few Afghanis or Iraqis as hijackers..... must be a detail they missed.
Instead they 'chose' mostly Saudis, citizens of a country relatively friendly towards the USA and the west. The guy planning this part must have thought all Arabs are the same.

[Childlike Empress]

You'll have the last word again, jaydeehess. Your rants filled with misinformation - those on- and those offtopic - don't impress me in the slightest. You have massively shot yourself in your own foot. I recommended self-reflection earlier but doubt that this will happen. So have at it.

[16.5]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

You'll have the last word again, jaydeehess. Your rants filled with misinformation - those on- and those offtopic - don't impress me the slightest. You have massively shot yourself in your own foot. I recommended self-reflection earlier but doubt that this will happen. So have at it.

Holy ******

You still at it CE?

I suggest you watch the first conspirator, or whatever the mutts called their unhinged defamation of Lloyde England.

Christ, you are SUCH a hypocrite.

[Childlike Empress]

Do you really still think that trying to bait me into nonsensical and uncivil exchanges with you works, 16.5? I gave beachnut a brief audience recently and it was promptly moved to AAH - including some topical posts of mine. I know your game.

[Justin39640]

I tried the magic trick about 100 times with a flight combat sim (LOMAC) using an A-10. Hitting the building, not a problem. Pulling up and over at the very last second, full throttle... not so much.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Do you really still think that trying to bait me into nonsensical and uncivil exchanges with you works, 16.5? I gave beachnut a brief audience recently and it was promptly moved to AAH - including some topical posts of mine. I know your game.

In the USAF many of our older planes have no FDR, thus we have to use witnesses and study of structural damage to find the cause of the accident. At the Pentagon we have flight 77 FDR and RADAR tracks which prove exactly by degree how the impact of 77 happened, the exact orientation, angle etc. Flight 77 hit in a decent, we don't need eye witnesses. CIT take witnesses and has them draw flight paths which defy physics, and twist testimony moronically to come up with nonsense, they failed.

An investigator would never ask a witness to draw a flight path from a tangential position, they would take bearings from the witness and fit that to other witnesses using basic navigation techniques to nail down there the flight was. For 77 we have RADAR, and FDR, and the flight 77 in the Pentagon.

CIT are unable to form rational conclusions on 911, and ignore reality to come up with nonsense. When you have the FDR you don't ask someone how it flew, when you have impact damage you don't care where people think it hit, we know exactly where it hit; CIT fails without much effort.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

You'll have the last word again, jaydeehess. Your rants filled with misinformation - those on- and those offtopic - don't impress me in the slightest. You have massively shot yourself in your own foot. I recommended self-reflection earlier but doubt that this will happen. So have at it.

Like I said,,,, bye then...

OTOH I also note that you never even bothered to answer any question I posed.
I asked specifically how the CiT manages to dismiss/ignore or discount the fact that the single point of convergence among eyewitnesses.
Your off the cuff remark,,, that it was an ochestrated 'magic trick'. No details.
You also told me that its all in "NSA", and I asked if there is any point that has not been covered in the pages of the JREF forums already.
No reply.

Perhaps you'd care to link to a post in which these deatils have been described, you know like how fast the decoy aircraft was moving when it began pulling up under full power and exactly how far out from the structure it was when this began, and when w.r.t. the pull-up the explosion occured, where the explosives were placed such that they destroy the first floor wall inward and cause the gen-set to move towards the Pentagon.

Instead of simply telling me I have to watch a 81 minute video. I do not care to download the video and certainly am not going to pay the CiT for a copy. Given that you and other CiT followers are so hot to post on JREF and have been doing so since Lyte Trip began posting about his 'blow the lid off' video about to come out ("Pentacon") I am quite sure you must have posted these details here where I can peruse them quickly and efficiently.......?????

I would have thought that if it were important that you would want to illuminate me. I would have thought that if it were important that you would bring up points not yet covered in these pages.

When I asked about the supposed CIA training of the hijacker pilots you offer up only that it was part of a legend to believe in.Then when I actually post a full scenario utilising such a detail as CIA training of hijacker-pilots and offer up the much simpler use of such , i.e. actually using them to fly planes into targets thus eliminating a huge amount of complicated planning which the CiT claims(with no evidence) occured,,, you again simply brush the query aside.

I asked another question in the "Continuation,,, " Thread; why is it that when asked questions that 911 conspiracists so oftem concentrate on reasons NOT to answer the question rather than actually answering the question.
You continue to demonstrate my point.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by beachnut

An investigator would never ask a witness to draw a flight path from a tangential position, they would take bearings from the witness and fit that to other witnesses using basic navigation techniques to nail down there the flight was. For 77 we have RADAR, and FDR, and the flight 77 in the Pentagon.

Radar data pretty much makes eyewitness testimony a moot point since data storage records exactly what is sent to it, unlike the human memory.

Of course the CiT discount/dismiss/ignore radar data because it comes from the big bad gov't (B.B.G.).

Same goes for aircraft parts and photos. Came from the gov't therefore its tainted by (CiT) definition.
DNA --tainted by B.B.G.
Any eyewitness associated in any way with the gov't (what are the odds of that in Virginia/D.C.?) - tainted by B.B.G. at any time the CiT deems it neccessary for their scenario (case in point any reporter, since any reporter in the area will have been reporting on military/gov't issues in the past)
Any witness not shown to be associated with the gov't - open to be tainted by the B.B.G. at any point the CiT deem neccessay for their scenario. (case in point a simple taxi driver)

How anyone can look at the CiT videos or posts in these and other forums and not immediatly see blatant confirmation bias is beyond comprehension.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Justin39640

I tried the magic trick about 100 times with a flight combat sim (LOMAC) using an A-10. Hitting the building, not a problem. Pulling up and over at the very last second, full throttle... not so much.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

CE wants nothing to do with explaining the details of the pull up to me Justin. Perhaps you'd care to illuminate me then. How far out from the Pentagon does the CiT claim the plane was when it began its full power pull up and how fast was it travelling when it began this ascent?

Further to this, am I to understand that an A-10, a ground support, extremely agile and solidily built combat designed and combat power plant equipped aircraft was unable to duplicate the manouver that the CiT claims was performed by a 757 look-alike? At least with you at the controls of a sim.

[jaydeehess]

double post

[jaydeehess]

From another post in reply to the claim that the plane was moving slowly. Even this contains two references to the plane hitting the Pentagon.

Originally Posted by achimspok

Morin: "...the throttles were steady and full."
Creed: "...going full speed, going full throttle..."
Liebner: "It was wheels up, flaps up, engines full throttle. "
Marra: "...the pilot had the throttle completely floored."
Snaman: "...came in low at full throttle, banked left and smashed into the wall of the Pentagon."Khavkin: "The engine was at full throttle."
Regnery: "...apparently at full throttle ....this plane was too low and going too fast..."
Leonard: "...then went full throttle directly toward the building."
Owens: "I didn't think the careering, full-throttled craft would get that far."
Martinez: "...a big jet flying close to the building coming at full speed."
Clem: "...above treetop height at full speed headed for the Pentagon."
Plaisted: "...over my house at great speed and just above the treetops..."
Renzi: "...with incredibly high speed..."
Narayanan: "...slammed into the Pentagon at a ferocious speed."
Sucherman: "It was coming in at a high rate of speed, but not at a steep angle--almost like a heat-seeking missile was locked onto its target..."
Munsey: "...almost noiselessly over the Navy Annex, fast, low and straight toward the Pentagon..."
Barbara: "...was coming in too fast and the too low..."
Eberle: "...a jet airliner flying very low and very fast..."
Gaskins: "...was flying fast and low and the Pentagon was the obvious target."
Benedetto: "Then the plane flew right over my head. I said to myself, boy, that plane is going awfully fast."
Wallace: "It was about 200 yards away, and was coming in low and fast."
Gus: "I saw the plane. Low. Too low. Fast."
Stafford: "By then it was vastly approaching. It was quiet thought."
Lagasse: "...the aircraft was exceeding the speed that would allow gear to be extended."
Middleton: "He kicked the throttle. When I looked, went straight into the building.".

Anderson " I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. "
Anluaf ""Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon. It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon)."
Bauer "We looked out the front of our windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn’t until a few seconds later that we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon"

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."

Bouchoux "At 9:40 a.m. I was driving down Washington Boulevard (Route 27) along the side of the Pentagon when the aircraft crossed about 200 yards in front of me and impacted the side of the building. "

Bradley "I work in Washington DC area, and was on my way to work, in my car, sitting on a bridge, and saw the plane hit the Pentagon"

Cissell ''Out of my peripheral vision, I saw this plane coming in and it was low - and getting lower. ''If you couldn't touch it from standing on the highway, you could by standing on your car.'' ''I thought, 'This isn't really happening. That is a big plane.' Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board,'' Cissell said. ''I remember thinking, 'The World Trade Center was just the beginning, there's going to be more.' '' He remembers the helipad the plane flew over before smacking into the Pentagon was close enough to him that ''I could have thrown a baseball at it and hit it.'' While he remembers seeing the crash, Cissell remembers none of the sounds. ''It came in in a perfectly straight line,'' he said. ''It didn't slow down. I want to say it accelerated. It just shot straight in.''

Daryl Donley "It just was amazingly precise," Daryl Donley, another commuter, said of the plane's impact. "It completely disappeared into the Pentagon." The News Journal
"I could see the windows. I saw the entire plane and then saw it fly right into the Pentagon."

Eberle (a pilot himself) The aircraft was so very low -- as an aircraft would be on its final approach to an airport. However, if you have watched any aircraft come in for a landing, even though the aircraft is descending, it is angled up slightly. This aircraft was angled downward. In addition, landing gear would also be visible on a aircraft so low and so near landing. This aircraft had its landing gear retracted. Finally, an aircraft on final approach is traveling rather slowly. This aircraft sped by very loudly an very quickly. All of this flashed in my mind as the aircraft passed from behind my left shoulder to in front of me. It was then that the other events of the morning crystallized in the realization that tragedy was about to occur. With all of these images spinning in my head, the only words that came out of my mouth were "Oh no!" With that, the airliner crashed into the Pentagon and exploded.

let's skip to the "W"s
Washington "It was extremely loud, as you can imagine, a plane that size, it was deafening," Washington said. The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, Washington said, knocking over light poles before hitting the ground on a helicopter pad just in front of the Pentagon and essentially bouncing into it. It "landed there and the momentum took it into the Pentagon," Washington said. "There was a very, very brief delay and then it exploded." Washington speculated that it could have been worse: "If it had kept altitude a little bit higher it probably would have landed in the middle of the Pentagon, in that court."

Wright "I watched this - it looked like a commuter plane, two-engined come down from the south real low proceed right on and crash right into the Pentagon. I watched it come in very low over the trees and it just dipped down and came down right over 395 right into the Pentagon."


I read almost every account and found none that had the plane about to hit or hitting an upper storey.

No one at all seems to have seen the plane rise up except Turcois and he says it rose up only to clear the roadway embankment then it went down again beyond the road,,,, and that is only if you believe Turcois in the first place(which CE does).

[BCR]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

No, my statement was about jaydeehess, not about the man who gave an unmistakenly clear account of what he saw and was smeared for it by the likes of achimspok and you.

No CE, facts are facts. Turcios was not where he said he was and did not do what he said he did. He could not see half of what he said he saw. Hence, he is guilty of either bad recall or lying. I have always contended it was bad recall, but since you want to use his account to claim another JREF member is lying, then we have to use the same standard.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by BCR

No CE, facts are facts. Turcios was not where he said he was and did not do what he said he did. He could not see half of what he said he saw. Hence, he is guilty of either bad recall or lying. I have always contended it was bad recall, but since you want to use his account to claim another JREF member is lying, then we have to use the same standard.

I have also included reasoning in which one does believe Turcois to show that the CiT excitement at his rising aircraft simply does not jive with a fly over since he says it rose over, then went down beyond the roadway.

either way Turcois is not a flyover witness.

[Justin39640]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

CE wants nothing to do with explaining the details of the pull up to me Justin. Perhaps you'd care to illuminate me then. How far out from the Pentagon does the CiT claim the plane was when it began its full power pull up and how fast was it travelling when it began this ascent?

It'd have to be close enough to fool people that it hit and make it over. I can't get up close (and close enough to the ground to make people think I skimmed it) and pull out in time. Here's what it looks like when I make it.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

I don't think it would fool people. I have to start climbing too soon.

Close, but no cigar:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Stalled a tad too.

The plane must also survive passing over a giant explosion. In the sim, getting too close to your target results in this:
http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_101j.html

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Further to this, am I to understand that an A-10, a ground support, extremely agile and solidily built combat designed and combat power plant equipped aircraft was unable to duplicate the manouver that the CiT claims was performed by a 757 look-alike? At least with you at the controls of a sim.

Pretty much, and going a bit slower.

[Grizzly Bear]

If only these guys would ask a real lawyer how to use witness testimony... CIT is incapable of this apparently... or they hope that people will forget about it if they ignore their problems long enough...

[16.5]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Do you really still think that trying to bait me into nonsensical and uncivil exchanges with you works, 16.5? I gave beachnut a brief audience recently and it was promptly moved to AAH - including some topical posts of mine. I know your game.

Hi CE!

You have accused a member here of attacking a witness, and acted outraged about it.

I pointed out that was extremely hypocritical, because your heroes have produced shoddy videos accusing several witnesses of mass murder.

They also accused, well lets just start with Boger of lying.

Yet, from CE what do we hear? Nothing... Well we do hear that CIT's attacks on England are "nonsensical."

CE knows my game, folks, the way I point out all those facts that CE finds inconvenient about her fraudulent pals.

See the raw videos yet CE?

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Justin39640

The plane must also survive passing over a giant explosion. In the sim, getting too close to your target results in this:
http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_101j.html



Pretty much, and going a bit slower.

I recall an interview with a F-4 pilot who took a SAM hit over Veitnam.

He said something very close to;
"Suddenly the aircraft rocked to starboard then tipped nose down, warning sounds and lights were all going off, gauges went to zero, and my stick flopped around, and I thought to myself "I don't think this thing is gonna fly anymore."".

[carlitos]

I apologize for bumpimg this, but I thought others might be amused. I was searching for evidence that Venezuela had renamed citgo stations, and this thread was result #19.

[tfk]

Madre Dios,

What is to become of a visual eyesore, uh, icon of the loyal fans of Fenway Park??




tk

[DGM]

I'm not sure if I should have saved this for last. As it is so long but, there are new members that might not have seen this, I said, what the heck.


Into to CIT 101 (I know there are others but, I'm lazy)

[Childlike Empress]

Watching the presentation "National Security Alert" before reading the thread will greatly improve new members' ability to understand what is talked about.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Watching the presentation "National Security Alert" before reading the thread will greatly improve new members' ability to understand what is talked about.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Wasn't that where the thread started (Post #19)?

So, What's new?