• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

CIT.....Time to call it a day

waaaaa... pay attention to us!!!

What is missing from CIT is a tree fort, And a bright red radio flier wagon to drag all their clues around in.
 
TC329 said:
Do you understand that it is impossible for everyone to hallucinate a 757 on the wrong side of the Citgo station not hitting any light poles?

7X over?

Including Sean Boger inside the Heliport Tower?

http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic9.htm
Click to expand...

Why do you continue to misrepresent your "witnesses?" Sean Boger is POSITIVE that a 757 hit the Pentagon. If I'm not mistaken, EVERY ONE of your "witnesses" is POSITIVE a 757 hit the Pentagon.

Getting a small detail wrong such as misrembering the exact flight path is to be expected.

Give it up Dom. Your continued delusion is going nowhere except perhaps helping you get into the nuthouse earlier.
 
TC329 said:
Do you understand that it is impossible for everyone to hallucinate a 757 on the wrong side of the Citgo station not hitting any light poles?

7X over?

Including Sean Boger inside the Heliport Tower?
Click to expand...

Hay TC, (you budding aviation genius), while you're here, I have a couple of questions. You know JAQing off.

How did AA77 get to the position to fly North of the Citgo? The flight path diagrams depicted on LC Forum and pffffft (by those with the CIT acronym by their signature) seem to be IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE BEEN PERFORMED by AA77 at the speeds it was flying. Can you explain that? You guys are really good at twoofer math, I want to see it.

You guys are really good at drawing lines on a digital map that are impossible to fly, computing descent rates you say are impossible to fly with twoofer math, and presenting witnesses (7 years after the event) who tell a mutually exclusive story that does not support your delusions.

Can you explain these dilemmas for your attentive audience here?
 
Last edited:
Calcas said:
Why do you continue to misrepresent your "witnesses?" Sean Boger is POSITIVE that a 757 hit the Pentagon. If I'm not mistaken, EVERY ONE of your "witnesses" is POSITIVE a 757 hit the Pentagon.

Getting a small detail wrong such as misrembering the exact flight path is to be expected.

Give it up Dom. Your continued delusion is going nowhere except perhaps helping you get into the nuthouse earlier.
Click to expand...


How did all these people who saw the plane fly into the Pentagon miss the same plane hitting 5 different light poles?

Are all these people "misrembering" all the details except "and then it hit the Pentagon"?

I'm afraid it's you who has to give it up.
 
Could Sean Boger even see the CITGO station from his position?
The pictures on the CIT page certainly do not support the idea that he could.

The station roof is well below the level of the overpass and the heliport window is only 40 feet(max) above the ground at the Pentagon. Was Boger using the station as a reference point because he knew it was there and trying to describe the line it took or was he saying this because he could see the station and the plane at the same time?

How far away was the plane when he saw it?

If it was close, that is already past the station, then he would be extrapolating back as to the path it took. It would aslo very quickly be taking up a very wide portion of his view. That is as it gets closer it would transend a much greater angle than even comparably large objects that are further away. It would be much larger in his view than the Citgo. He has , at best, seconds, to see the plane before he dives for cover and will have to be recalling those few seconds. Details do get lost in such situations which explains the use by many witnesses of qualifiers on some of their statements.

We see, in "The Pentacon" Robert Turcios having it suggested to him that the plane did not travel along the path he originally says it did. The interviewer gets him to change it twice until he says it was over the south side of the station (barely) when originally he had pointed to the north (over the station canopy) and said it had passed directly over the station. Robert was remembering the split seconds during which he watched the plane, the suggestions made by the interviewer gave him a new, false, memory.

Robert also says that the plane goes behind the overpass and never comes back up again. He sees the fireball and knows that the plane has crashed.
The CIT would have us believe that Robert says that the plane was "still obscured" by the fireball and that is why he believes that the plane hit the building. That is patently ridiculous because it means that Robert sees no contradiction in the fireball occuring before the plane crashes into the building. Robert cannot see the ground floor of the Pentagon but he can see the roofline. If the fireball occured before the plane gets to the building then Robert should be able to see the plane rising and entering the fireball as it flies over the building. The only way that the fireball could obscure his view of this occuring would be to have the fireball several hundred yards in front of the building in order to give the plane any time at all to pull up. That did not happen. If the fireball occurs as the plane reachs the building again Robert would have seen the plane reappear unless the CIT wants us to believe that the aircraft was capable of rocketing straight up the side of the building within the fireball.


In rapidly occuring, eyewitness situations one must take the majority reports as closest to the truth rather than the minority reports.

One thing that comes up in all reports is that the witnesses either saw or believed that the plane hit the building. That certainly includes all three at the Citgo and Boger

That is your smoking gun, the plane hit the building.
 
Last edited:
Reheat said:
Hay TC, (you budding aviation genius), while you're here, I have a couple of questions. You know JAQing off.

How did AA77 get to the position to fly North of the Citgo? The flight path diagrams depicted on LC Forum and pffffft (by those with the CIT acronym by their signature) seem to be IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE BEEN PERFORMED by AA77 at the speeds it was flying. Can you explain that? You guys are really good at twoofer math, I want to see it.
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight, since CIT believes the FDR data to be a total fabrication you expect CIT to still use it as reference points for velocity the plane was traveling?

That's fascinating to take a piece of bogus "evidence" (used loosely) proven to be inaccurate and fraudulent and then have to rely on it as evidence. Perhaps in your world but not in ours.


You guys are really good at drawing lines on a digital map that are impossible to fly, computing descent rates you say are impossible to fly with twoofer math, and presenting witnesses (7 years after the event) who tell a mutually exclusive story that does not support your delusions.

Can you explain these dilemmas for your attentive audience here?
Click to expand...

This is great because I was speaking to a police officer last night and was telling him about my research in Shankville and Craig & Aldo's in Arlington and he told me "Yeah well you see a bus over there you see it over there. You might forget what color it was or whose bus it was but you know where you saw it." He found it all to be extremely fascinating especially the testimonies of the 2 police sergeants. As for the conclusions he said he would have to examine all the evidence before he could agree with the implications of it but couldn't see how so many people could get that aspect wrong. And then missing something like light poles getting torn out of the ground and thrown around by those same witnesses.

The attentive audience needs to discuss CIT's info with law enforcement officials from a fair unbiased stand point and I believe the attentive audience will be very surprised with the outcome.

That's my 2 cents.
 
TC329 said:
How did all these people who saw the plane fly into the Pentagon miss the same plane hitting 5 different light poles?

Are all these people "misrembering" all the details except "and then it hit the Pentagon"?
.
Click to expand...

Because it is the hitting of the building that is the most traumatic memory. The sight, sound and vibration would be very great, greater even than the passage of the plane low and fast. The detail of lamp posts getting hit would be miniscule compared to both the passage of the aircraft and, especially, the impact

On the other hand the CIT would have us believe that all witnesses who saw the impact are misremembering, all the people who place the flight path along the accepted route are misremembering, and that the only detail that has been recalled correctly is that of a few who place it somewhere along a path that took it past the south side of the Citgo and that no one, no one at all, from any angle, who did see that plane (to be specific,the one that flew low and fast towards the Pentagon), also did not see that very large aircraft pull up and fly over the Pentagon.

The "Pentacon" is a fantasy born in the minds of deluded fools! But that is just my personal opinion, others may differ.
 
TC329 said:
So let me get this straight, since CIT believes the FDR data to be a total fabrication you expect CIT to still use it as reference points for velocity the plane was traveling?

That's fascinating to take a piece of bogus "evidence" (used loosely) proven to be inaccurate and fraudulent and then have to rely on it as evidence. Perhaps in your world but not in ours.
Click to expand...

To fly slow it would require flaps extended and a high angle of attack AND would not have been capable of pulling up and over the Pentagon.

So, pray tell, how fast was it going?



This is great because I was speaking to a police officer last night and was telling him about my research in Shankville and Craig & Aldo's in Arlington and he told me "Yeah well you see a bus over there you see it over there. You might forget what color it was or whose bus it was but you know where you saw it." He found it all to be extremely fascinating especially the testimonies of the 2 police sergeants. As for the conclusions he said he would have to examine all the evidence before he could agree with the implications of it but couldn't see how so many people could get that aspect wrong. And then missing something like light poles getting torn out of the ground and thrown around by those same witnesses.

The attentive audience needs to discuss CIT's info with law enforcement officials from a fair unbiased stand point and I believe the attentive audience will be very surprised with the outcome.

That's my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

Fine, now how about you answer the question that was asked rather than one you wish to answer. What are you doing, practising to be a politician?

To put a fine point on it, Reheat's remarks were, for the greater part, aimed at the impossible flight paths that the CIT claim and the wildly erroneous math used by P4T to compute 'g' forces.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
Could Sean Boger even see the CITGO station from his position?
Click to expand...

YES.

The pictures on the CIT page certainly do not support the idea that he could.
Click to expand...

What???? LMAO!!!

Maybe had Craig climbed up a ladder they would be slightly more accurate.

The station roof is well below the level of the overpass and the heliport window is only 40 feet(max) above the ground at the Pentagon. Was Boger using the station as a reference point because he knew it was there and trying to describe the line it took or was he saying this because he could see the station and the plane at the same time?
Click to expand...

He saw the station and the plane at the same time. I know he is the most damning witness for you debunkers. I can't wait until the video is released.

How far away was the plane when he saw it?

If it was close, that is already past the station, then he would be extrapolating back as to the path it took. It would aslo very quickly be taking up a very wide portion of his view. That is as it gets closer it would transend a much greater angle than even comparably large objects that are further away. It would be much larger in his view than the Citgo. He has , at best, seconds, to see the plane before he dives for cover and will have to be recalling those few seconds. Details do get lost in such situations.
Click to expand...

You should be so lucky but you're not. Boger watched the plane come in from the bank over the Navy Annex which has also been corroborated repeatedly.

We see, in "The Pentacon" Robert Turcios having it suggested to him that the plane did not travel along the path he originally says it did. The interviewer gets him to change it twice until he says it was over the south side of the station (barely) when originally he had pointed to the north (over the station canopy) and said it had passed directly over the station. Robert was remembering the split seconds during which he watched the plane, the suggestions made by the interviewer gave him a new, false, memory.
Click to expand...

Robert was not led by suggestion into saying anything. And nowhere was he led into saying it "pulled up" to clear an obstacle when asked about it hitting any. If he were the only witness placing the plane on that side of the station you may be onto something but his claims have been repeatedly corroborated 7x over.

Robert also says that the plane goes behind the overpass and never comes back up again. He sees the fireball and knows that the plane has crashed.
The CIT would have us believe that Robert says that the plane was "still obscured" by the fireball and that is why he believes that the plane hit the building. That is patently ridiculous because it means that Robert sees no contradiction in the fireball occuring before the plane crashes into the building. Robert cannot see the ground floor of the Pentagon but he can see the roofline. If the fireball occured before the plane gets to the building then Robert should be able to see the plane rising and entering the fireball as it flies over the building. The only way that the fireball could obscure his view of this occuring would be to have the fireball several hundred yards in front of the building in order to give the plane any time at all to pull up. That did not happen. If the fireball occurs as the plane reachs the building again Robert would have seen the plane reappear unless the CIT wants us to believe that the aircraft was capable of rocketing straight up the side of the building within the fireball.
Click to expand...

You guys are all about "misrememberings" and "false memories" and "led witnesses" in all kinds of regards except one : IMPACT. That they can't "misremember" or be "led" into believing.


In rapidly occuring, eyewitness situations one must take the majority reports as closest to the truth rather than the minority reports.
Click to expand...

The majority of the reports put the plane on the North side of the Citgo not hitting any light poles.

Joel Sucherman and Father McGraw also admitted they did not actually withness the plane hitting any lightpoles.

Thats 8 (I don't include Paik because he only witnessed the bank over to the North side of the Navy Annex from his position) of your star impact witnessess not corroborating your South side light pole tearing flight path.

Actually we can include Steven Ross as a North Side witness since CIT has spoke with him and he did confirm for us in a recorded telephone interview that the plane crossed over to the North side of the Navy Annex thus the North side of the Citgo station which he also confirmed. CIT has been willing to share this research privately since Ross did not give us permission to release it. Unfortunately for you there is no one at this board we respect or trust enough to do that with. But we have offered it to several of our "debunkers" such as the once highly respected fake 9/11 Truther Russell Pickering.

One thing that comes up in all reports is that the witnesses either saw or believed that the plane hit the building. That certainly includes all three at the Citgo and Boger

That is your smoking gun, the plane hit the building.
Click to expand...


I bolded and enlarged the key word in your post.
 
"How did all these people who saw the plane fly into the Pentagon miss the same plane hitting 5 different light poles?"

LIGHT POLES! Are you kidding me, you’re focusing on light poles? God, what a frivolous meaningless thing to focus on.

“Yes, they said that the plane hit the Pentagon, but did not mention they light poles, so their entire story is suspect.” That is absolutely ridiculous.

“Yes, they testified that the bullet entered the skull, but did not mention the bullet first damaging the hair, so the entire story is suspect.”

“Yes, they said the elephant sat on a monkey, but did not mention that the elephant also killed some fleas, so the entire story is suspect.”

“Yes, they said the plane hit the Pentagon, but also said that the flight path might have been North of Citgo, so we totally ignore the first part, exalt the second part to absolute certainty, ignore all the other evidence, and make crappy, crazy internet films about it.”

Nah, nobody would believe that last one.
 
TC329 said:
So let me get this straight, since CIT believes the FDR data to be a total fabrication you expect CIT to still use it as reference points for velocity the plane was traveling?
Click to expand...

How fast was it traveling? It is not acceptable to say "I don't know" and continue to support your theory. You need to prove it and that part hasn't been proven.

Where's the math to prove that turn is even possible? Calculate it at the speed of your choice and we'll go from there.

Come on, it's your theory and intelligent folks that are going to be convinced need that kind of information. You demand that kind of detail all of the time, so it's my turn to see the proof that the turn is possible.

Aldo has a current post at pffffft right now, with the turn depicted. It's called a "graceful turn". I want to see the math for that turn and if it's convincing, I might even donate a lot of money to your cause. Is it too difficult for you?
 
Why don't you register at PFT and ask Aldo yourself?

I don't want to be threatened with suspension for cross posting.
 
TC329 said:
Why don't you register at PFT and ask Aldo yourself?

I don't want to be threatened with suspension for cross posting.
Click to expand...

Cross posting? I asked you for calculations which does not require cross posting.

Let's see the math for the turn.
 
So once again, you are trying to use the weakest form of evidence to dismiss the far more abundant and more reliable evidence. Yeah, great research work there TC. And by using a combination of conspiracy theories which conflict with each other. Gosh, wonder why no one takes little CTers seriously...
 
Ok I am confused here. CIT makes several claims:

1. FDR that was recovered at the scene was fake
2. CC video at the Pentagon was fake
3. CC video at the Doubletree was fake
4. The downed light poles were planted
5. Crazy Cabbie Lloyd lied and is a possible plant by the government
6. There were bombs planted in the Pentagon during renovations
7. CIT said it is possible that civilian contractors were involved with planting them
8. These bombs used produced the evidence that matches that of a airplane.
9. The plane debris that was found was planted
10. The remains that were found. (many by firefighters) were planted.
11. DNA evidence was doctored.
12. USA Today is somehow involved in this too?
13. Anyone that claims they saw the impact were somehow duped?

With all of this mess, why would the Government plant the wrong flight path? I mean really?
They took the time out to plant the bombs in all the right light poles, they cut the hole in the chain link fence, they pushed the generator in the right direction, they set all the "monkey" charges in all the right places in order to get the damage consistent with that of an airplane, they planted the thousands of pounds of airplane parts in the matter of seconds without anyone seeing them, the somehow got every medic on board involved with DNA collection and identification.....

But darn it they got the FDR wrong. Why not just say the FDR was too damaged and that information could not be recovered from it?
 
Mr.Herbert said:
Ok I am confused here. CIT makes several claims:

1. FDR that was recovered at the scene was fake
2. CC video at the Pentagon was fake
3. CC video at the Doubletree was fake
4. The downed light poles were planted
5. Crazy Cabbie Lloyd lied and is a possible plant by the government
6. There were bombs planted in the Pentagon during renovations
7. CIT said it is possible that civilian contractors were involved with planting them
8. These bombs used produced the evidence that matches that of a airplane.
9. The plane debris that was found was planted
10. The remains that were found. (many by firefighters) were planted.
11. DNA evidence was doctored.
12. USA Today is somehow involved in this too?
13. Anyone that claims they saw the impact were somehow duped?

With all of this mess, why would the Government plant the wrong flight path? I mean really?
They took the time out to plant the bombs in all the right light poles, they cut the hole in the chain link fence, they pushed the generator in the right direction, they set all the "monkey" charges in all the right places in order to get the damage consistent with that of an airplane, they planted the thousands of pounds of airplane parts in the matter of seconds without anyone seeing them, the somehow got every medic on board involved with DNA collection and identification.....

But darn it they got the FDR wrong. Why not just say the FDR was too damaged and that information could not be recovered from it?
Click to expand...

You left out a couple of items.

14. Multiple VDOT witnesses that indicated AA77 flew over or very near their building. Witnesses ignored.
15. In addition to the light pole damage, there's a tree with a cutout matching an engine intake near one of the light poles. Not addressed as if it doesn't exist.
16. Generator and fence damage in front of the Pentagon which matches perfectly with the the size/width of an engine and matches the EXACT damage path through the building. Done by perps with foreknowledge of flight path.
 
Last edited:
TC329 said:
YES.



What???? LMAO!!!

Maybe had Craig climbed up a ladder they would be slightly more accurate.
Click to expand...

The PICTURES in the article do not illustrate that he could. You would need a level camera(the CIT knows how to make sure a camera is level on a tripod right?) and take a photo in the direction of the station and another in the direction of the heliport by only rotating the camera ,(on a tripod) otherwise you are showing nothing more than the fact that there is a station and that there is a heliport. Better yet you could go to the station , climb a ladder and shoot back towards the heliport and see if you can see the heliport. Remember we know Boger could see the plane, what we don't know is if he could see the station.





He saw the station and the plane at the same time. I know he is the most damning witness for you debunkers. I can't wait until the video is released.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sure its gonna be chock'a'block full of good stuff.


You should be so lucky but you're not. Boger watched the plane come in from the bank over the Navy Annex which has also been corroborated repeatedly.
Click to expand...

I'm sure he could see the Nazy Annex.



Robert was not led by suggestion into saying anything. And nowhere was he led into saying it "pulled up" to clear an obstacle when asked about it hitting any. If he were the only witness placing the plane on that side of the station you may be onto something but his claims have been repeatedly corroborated 7x over.
Click to expand...

Oh, please,,, he is coached to place the flight path where Craig so dearly wanted it and his 'pull up' statement refers to it pulling up over the highway. Robert says that he was running and climbing an embankment at the time of the 'pull up' which means that his own elecvation was changing at the time.



You guys are all about "misrememberings" and "false memories" and "led witnesses" in all kinds of regards except one : IMPACT. That they can't "misremember" or be "led" into believing.
Click to expand...


Yeah, ain't it odd. EVERYONE remembers the plane as having HIT the building.



The majority of the reports put the plane on the North side of the Citgo not hitting any light poles.
Click to expand...

No, they do not say it did not hit poles , they say they do not recall it hitting poles!

Joel Sucherman and Father McGraw also admitted they did not actually withness the plane hitting any lightpoles.
Click to expand...

Yeah,and?

Thats 8 (I don't include Paik because he only witnessed the bank over to the North side of the Navy Annex from his position) of your star impact witnessess not corroborating your South side light pole tearing flight path.
Click to expand...

Paik's account is consistent with the accepted flight path.

Actually we can include Steven Ross as a North Side witness since CIT has spoke with him and he did confirm for us in a recorded telephone interview that the plane crossed over to the North side of the Navy Annex thus the North side of the Citgo station which he also confirmed. CIT has been willing to share this research privately since Ross did not give us permission to release it. Unfortunately for you there is no one at this board we respect or trust enough to do that with. But we have offered it to several of our "debunkers" such as the once highly respected fake 9/11 Truther Russell Pickering.
Click to expand...

Well excuse me if I will not take the word of people who are proven to have taken others statements out of context, twisted statements and made carp up if I am not to be able to also hear the witnesses exact words as well as the exact words of the interviewer.


I bolded and enlarged the key word in your post.
Click to expand...

I refer to Boger having ducked as the plane came across the lawn, and Turcois being unable to see the impact because the plane was below his sight line over the overpass, not your laughable mass hallucination contention.

Face it TC no one at all saw what the CIT claims occured, no one! No one at all, nada, zip, zilch zero. The group of people who saw the plane approaching the Pentagon low and fast who also saw it climb up and over the building constitute an empty set!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom