• 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

uk_dave said:
Who had a job stalking a co-worker?
Click to expand...

Your guess is as good as mine Dave. I have no clue what this dude is talking about.
He keeps attributing things to me that I have not said or done.
He lied to Ron about being a researcher so his credibility is suspect.
 
Reheat said:
Nope. That's not what I asked for. I asked for you to prove the turn from Paik's position to the North side of the Citgo. You have no witnesses for that.
Click to expand...

This aspect was confirmed by witness Steve Ross who did not give CIT permission to release his interview. You can feel free to contact himself just like every other witness presented to date by CIT. Not that any of you will, but you are free to do so.

You are all delusional about Edward Paik's account. He 100% corroborates the north side claim.
kirkm.jpg


edpaiksextendedpath.jpg


The physical damage requires the plane to be on the souths side of Columbia Pike at all times yet this is NOT what Paik described at all.
 
CIT call it a day? Who, then, shall represent the movement as the definitive joke?
 
pomeroo said:
Nobody backed out of anything with you. You claimed to be a researcher and you turned out to be just another know-nothing.
Click to expand...

1) I accused the BBC/History Channel of editing the testimony of Mrs. McElwain & Ms. Weyant.

2) You shot off your mouth that they were coming on your show and offered me a chance to confront them.

3) I accepted your invitation.

4) You backed out and then told me to try calling in but you couldn't guarentee I would get through to cover your "A".
 
TC329 said:
The physical damage requires the plane to be on the souths side of Columbia Pike at all times yet this is NOT what Paik described at all.
Click to expand...

I noticed you only used one of Paik's drawings. What about the other one posted by AWS that shows the flight line clearly passing to the south of the CITGO? Cherry picking?

Which one is the correct one? The one that supports four wittnesses or the one that supports all the other wittnesses and the physical damage?
 
Last edited:
Go On Dom.. keep goin with the line you drew there.

TC329 said:
This aspect was confirmed by witness Steve Ross who did not give CIT permission to release his interview. You can feel free to contact himself just like every other witness presented to date by CIT. Not that any of you will, but you are free to do so.

You are all delusional about Edward Paik's account. He 100% corroborates the north side claim.
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Pentagon folder 2/kirkm.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Pentagon folder 2/edpaiksextendedpath.jpg

The physical damage requires the plane to be on the souths side of Columbia Pike at all times yet this is NOT what Paik described at all.
Click to expand...

Oh you just hurt yourself there Dom. (or whoever you are sharing your account with at the moment) So now the plane makes an abrupt right turn at the Citgo to fly over the Pentagon impact fireball?" Go on.. Continue your yellow line there to the impact point. This I just gotta see.
 
TC329 said:
Bobert lost his job stalking Craig online. The real poetic justice is that Bobert's position was filled with Aldo. Now do you understand why he is so bitter?
Click to expand...
I'm curious, what kind of company would hire pathological liars and delusional people, like Craig and Aldo.
 
uruk said:
I noticed you only used one of Paik's drawings. What about the other one posted by AWS that shows the flight line clearly passing to the south of the CITGO? Cherry picking?

Which one is the correct one? The one that supports four wittnesses or the one that supports all the other wittnesses and the physical damage?
Click to expand...


Obviously you are out of date as you mention 4 witnesses and we all know CIT has gone public with more than 4 at this point.

Please present your witnesses and the interviews you conducted with them where they talk about seeing the plane slicing through trees and light poles and generators and bring that back to us. We would be very interested in hearing/seeing such evidence. Thank you.
 
A W Smith said:
Oh you just hurt yourself there Dom. (or whoever you are sharing your account with at the moment) So now the plane makes an abrupt right turn at the Citgo to fly over the Pentagon impact fireball?" Go on.. Continue your yellow line there to the impact point. This I just gotta see.
Click to expand...

Sharing my account with?

I don't post via proxy. The mods could easily confirm that someone else was using my account if your accusations were true. But of course, as par for the course, they are not.......
 
Give it up TC, you lost this fight before you even started it. You have never been interested in seeing or hearing any evidence because it all contradicts everything that you have ever posted. On the positive side though, you have a great chance of winning the stundie award. Go for the gold!
 
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?
Click to expand...

But it was possible for people to hallucinate a 757 hitting the pentagon 7x over?
 
TC329 said:
Obviously you are out of date as you mention 4 witnesses and we all know CIT has gone public with more than 4 at this point.

Please present your witnesses and the interviews you conducted with them where they talk about seeing the plane slicing through trees and light poles and generators and bring that back to us. We would be very interested in hearing/seeing such evidence. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Gee! Can I play?

Well you see there is this organization called CIT who goes around interviewing people about the pentagon. And they have these four or more people who are slightly confused about the flight path. Big deal, right? I know.

Here is the important part: each of them says that the plane hit the Pentagon!!

Kind of game, set, match, hey TC?
 
TC likes videos.

How about this one........



How good is eyewitness memory?
Not very.
 
applecorped said:
Expect a question in reply.
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't expect a reply. The whole CIT group kind of ignores that fact.

I have always been curious just what these guys tell these witnesses to get them to talk to CIT. I wonder if any of them know that they are the stars in some internet fantasy.

Oh yeah, the plane dipped down over the pentagon to make it looked like it crashed but then flew away, but nobody noticed it because of the big bomb at the pentagon, and we know that because nobody mentioned the light poles that were knocked down (except those that did mention it).

So someone doesn't mention light poles: inside jorb!!lol!!

Nobody mentions plane flying away: fiendishly clever Govmint agents of the NWO.

/I love CIT: they give my eyeballs all the exercise they ever need in rolling.
 
TC329 said:
Obviously you are out of date as you mention 4 witnesses and we all know CIT has gone public with more than 4 at this point.
Click to expand...
So it's up to, what, five six?

Please present your witnesses and the interviews you conducted with them where they talk about seeing the plane slicing through trees and light poles and generators and bring that back to us. We would be very interested in hearing/seeing such evidence. Thank you.
Click to expand...

I'm a college instructor, not a "weekend investigator" so I'll have to refer you to Gravy's list which I'm sure you are already familiar with.

So how many people did you have to interview untill you arrived at the five or six people who said what you wanted them to say?

You ignore all those other people infavor of these few because it simply supports your agenda? That's what you would call bad investigation and bad science. That's presuming the outcome and cherry picking the evidence to support that conclusion.

In every investigation or research you will always run into a margin of error. Taking all the numbers of wittnesses into account, those few would make up your margin of error.

Oh and by the way, You still haven't explained why you ignored Paik's other drawing. you know, the one that was closer to his vantage point than the one you used.
 
TC329 said:
Bobert lost his job stalking Craig online. The real poetic justice is that Bobert's position was filled with Aldo. Now do you understand why he is so bitter?
Click to expand...

So Bobert had a job stalking Craig online, and now Aldo now has that job. It doesn't sound like a very rewarding career.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom