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

[A W Smith]

Dom, I see you have evaded my request to extend the line you drew to extend Paiks flight path. This is the path you are now pushing?

 

[DGM]

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?

This is the part I can't understand. Their accounts are perfect up to that point but then they are mistaken? I've suffered through "Penticon" (a while ago) and that area seems to go very gray. Maybe it's just me that likes a story that follows through to the end.

 

[TC329]

So Bobert had a job stalking Craig online, and now Aldo now has that job. It doesn't sound like a very rewarding career.

LOL. that was actually pretty good.

 

[Bobert]

I'm curious, what kind of company would hire pathological liars and delusional people, like Craig and Aldo.

Do not post personal information about other posters.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

I had the unfortunate displeasure of having to listen to Craig and his disgusting comments about the victims of 9-11 for a year and a half.
Hey TC when you speak with Aldo next let him know my invitation to meet me face to face and again threaten my child is still there.

 

[Bobert]

Actually the count was 4 total 911 truthers that worked there all of whom were freaks. My favorite was Craig's buddy who thought George Bush had a ranch in South America and was trying to steal the worlds water supply.
I am very plessed that I am no longer there.
If I had to do it over again I would have done it the exact same way.

 

[jaydeehess]

Could someone place a relativly properly scaled 757 in this graphic just for illustration. Place it at a location just before it gets to the Citgo at which time it would be in a high angle bank that Brooks, Lagasse and Turcios would have to have noticed. )Particularily Lagasse who the CIT make sure to include making statements about his having worked around aircraft in the past. Surely he at least would have noticed a plane at a 40 degree bank

http://http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gracefulbank.jpg

So we now have the CIT witnesses remembering everything correctly except for their misremembering the high angle bank, and they ( and every single other witness in a position to see impact) were duped into believeing that the aircraft hit the Pentagon while a fireball hid its pulling up and over the building.

The fireball occurs far enough in front of the Pentagon to hide this pull up but there are no witnesses to a fireball several hundred feet in front of the building and neither is there any physical evidence of sucha thing.
The CIT claim that the fireball erupted right at the Pentagon though which begs the question, 'how did no one then see the plane pulling up such that as it came to be at the wall of the Pentagon it would, by neccessity, have to be higher than the roofline?'.

Then again we all know how much the CIT hates being asked hard questions, like this, or 'how fast was the plane travelling, how many g's would it be pulling to turn at the Citgo and pass over the building, what would the bank angle have to be to make that not-so-graceful turn?'

 

[jaydeehess]

Bobert, as much as I can sympathize with you on your life among truthers, please take the high road and not post about it in threads on subjects other than 'life with the truthers'.

 

[TC329]

Dom, I see you have evaded my request to extend the line you drew to extend Paiks flight path. This is the path you are now pushing?

I am not "pushing" any flight path other than the plane's placement on the North side of the Citgo station and I'm not the one putting that forward it's the people who were there that day and witnessed it that are.

I don't have to provide you a set of numbers to prove they are not lying. These are real people. You can contact them just like Craig & Aldo did and demand they drop one of their claims like Ron insists.

But have you ever stopped and pondered what if they are right? What if they are right about the impact and the flight path and what would be the implications if they are?

Yeah I didn't think you did either..........

 

[TC329]

There is plenty to support the half-truth told by Mineta/Belger that place the plane DRA near the USA Today building in Rosslyn actually headed into or over/next to DC.

--Steve Chaconas saw THE jet approaching from the east side of the Potomac from the NW.

--The accounts of Joe Hurst, Joseph Candelario, Gen Clyde Vaughn, Stuart Artman, and South Carolina Adjutant Gen. Stan Spears saw the plane in DC skies. The second hand accounts reported by Scott Cook and Tom Hovis also place the plane in DC skies.

--Radar tracking recreation images from National Geographic documentaries show the plane on the DC flight path.
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/SecondsfromDisaster1.jpg
http://www.aa77fdr.com/misc/Radar_path_NGeo1.jpg

--Ari Fleischer admits there was another flight path that took the plane towards the white house and not well SW of it as the NTSB/RADES data attempts to depict.

Sources say the hijacked jet continued east at a high speed toward the city, but flew several miles south of the restricted airspace around the White House.
[...]
At the White House Friday, spokesman Ari Fleischer saw it a different way.
"That is not the radar data that we have seen," Fleischer said, adding, "The plane was headed toward the White House."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/...ain310721.shtml

--ATC Danielle O'Brien was sure the plane "came over the pentagon" and "over-shot" or missed the White House.

O'Brien went to the Pentagon to see what happened for herself, making her ever more certain that the Pentagon was a secondary target, and that the hijackers overshot or missed the White House.
"I've been down to the Pentagon and stood on the hillside and imagined where, according to what I saw on the radar, that flight would have come from," she says. "And I think that they came eastbound and because sun was in their eyes that morning, and because the White House was beyond a grove of trees, I think they couldn't see it. It was too fast. They came over that Pentagon or saw it just in front of them. You can't miss the Pentagon. It's so telltale by its shape and its size, and they said, 'Look, there it is. Take that. Get that.' They certainly could have had the White House if they had seen it."
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=124266&page=3
or
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123822&page=1

-Col Deskins reports the radar terminating over Washington DC:

Poster 22205: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8721198283922671798
IMPORTANT note at 15:20 minutes video time of the above clip: Colonel Deskins, a lady radar person (with air force uniform), from the New York Command Center (of norad) comes on:

-and she very SPECIFICALLY describes the last maneuver of the plane. whats KEY in her exact quote is this (bolded):

"we caught, on the radar scope, a few blips, maybe 7 or 8 (hands showing the spiral maneuver motion in correspondence with these radar dots), just enough to kinda go around in a half circle and then fade, eh - losing radar contact - RIGHT OVER um, WASHINGTON."

--Colin Scoggins (and Kevin Nesapany) place the/an unidentified plane SE & east of the White House/Potomac.

Scoggins: Just to report, be advised the aircraft is 4-6 miles SE (southeast) of the White House.
Huntress: 6 miles SOUTHEAST of the White House?
Scoggins: Yup
Huntress: He's moving away?

Not to mention,


-If you watch the BBC interview with C-130 pilot Lt Col Steven O'Brien, he pulls out the map and says...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9ag6brfWro
"Well here's a chart of the Washington DC area...
That's Andrews Air Force Base right here...
We departed out of Andrews, climbed to 3000 ft which took us by the south side of the mall."

Narrator: Lt. Col. O'Brien was on a routine flight, but as he flew over Central Washington air traffic control reported an unidentified jet fast approaching on his left hand side.

And again, the narrator said as "Flight AA77 descended in a wide turn over the Capitol and lined up with it's target there was a military C-130...flying above Washington DC".
Clearly the BBC interviewed him and understood what he had explained to them, because they mention central DC several times.

--Furthermore, when they finally discussed the C-130's role Lt. Col Kenneth states that the decoy jet was heading into Washington at an angle (the 30-45 degree bank)...
A C-130 cargo plane had departed Andrews Air Force Base en route to Minnesota that morning and reported seeing an airliner heading into Washington"at an unusual angle," said Lt. Col. Kenneth McClellan, a Pentagon spokesman.

 

[uk_dave]

But have you ever stopped and pondered what if they are right? What if they are right about the impact and the flight path and what would be the implications if they are?

Yeah I didn't think you did either..........

And have you ever stopped and pondered what if they (and you) are wrong?

Let's face it TC, you and your fellow 'truthers' have signally failed to prove that the 'official' account is impossible.
Until you provide that balls to the wall, incontrovertible smoking gun (you know, like you completely failed to with the pentagon 'g' force fiasco?) then there will always be that possibility that events occured just how described by the 'official account' and any theory 'truthers' come up with is going to be incredibly complex with an absurd number of ideologically committed players.

Prove that it is impossible for the structural damage and fires from the planes to have brought down the wtc towers.

Prove that it is impossible for flight 93 to have crashed in shanksville.

Prove that it is impossible for AA77 to have hit the pentagon.

Otherwise the probability will always be that all of these events happened and that you are wrong.

Take a step away from your emotional investment in all this. Consider the possibility that your witnesses are mistaken and/or confused. Consider that perhaps highly trained professional investigators actually know what they are doing and that you, a well meaning amateur, are totally out of your depth and your reasoning is clouded by your preconceptions.

I know you won't, but I felt it needed to be said.

 

[The Big Dog]

I am not "pushing" any flight path other than the plane's placement on the North side of the Citgo station and I'm not the one putting that forward it's the people who were there that day and witnessed it that are.

I don't have to provide you a set of numbers to prove they are not lying. These are real people. You can contact them just like Craig & Aldo did and demand they drop one of their claims like Ron insists.

But have you ever stopped and pondered what if they are right? What if they are right about the impact and the flight path and what would be the implications if they are?
Yeah I didn't think you did either..........

Uh, we've always asserted that they correct about the "impact." I've pointed it out about ten times in this thread alone. The plane hit the Pentagon.

There, I said it again!

"You can contact them just like Craig & Aldo did and demand they drop one of their claims like Ron insists."

Whoa! Craig and Aldo demanded that your witnesses drop their testimony that the plane hit the Pentagon?

WOW!! I assume that your witnesses told them to get bent, correct? Otherwise, it would have been Smoking Gun Version 2.2.7.

 

[applecorped]

TC posed a quote - "that the hijackers overshot or missed the White House."

I wonder what those hijackers were up to that day? Hmmmm.............

 

[TC329]

Uh, we've always asserted that they correct about the "impact." I've pointed it out about ten times in this thread alone. The plane hit the Pentagon.

There, I said it again!

"You can contact them just like Craig & Aldo did and demand they drop one of their claims like Ron insists."

Whoa! Craig and Aldo demanded that your witnesses drop their testimony that the plane hit the Pentagon?

WOW!! I assume that your witnesses told them to get bent, correct? Otherwise, it would have been Smoking Gun Version 2.2.7.

Explain to me what implications your North side impact theory has on the "mechanical damage path" and how it corroborates / conflicts with the ASCE report.

There is no need for anyone on our side to demand that these witnesses drop any aspect of their story. That is the rabid demands of Ron. I don't think Ron is calling Robert, Brooks, Paik, Stephens, Boger, O'Brien, Wheelhouse or LaGasse because I think Ron is like his idols Hannity & O'Reilly (i.e. full of hot air).

 

[TC329]

I wonder what bank one of your favorite witnesses Mike Walter is describing.............?????

 

[A W Smith]

I am not "pushing" any flight path other than the plane's placement on the North side of the Citgo station and I'm not the one putting that forward it's the people who were there that day and witnessed it that are.

I don't have to provide you a set of numbers to prove they are not lying. These are real people. You can contact them just like Craig & Aldo did and demand they drop one of their claims like Ron insists.

But have you ever stopped and pondered what if they are right? What if they are right about the impact and the flight path and what would be the implications if they are?

Yeah I didn't think you did either..........

They simply cannot be right. There is no passenger plane in existence that can make that banking maneuver at that speed. Face it Dom. what they saw was the shadow of the plane to the north because of the topography of the area. The steep drop off from the Annex to the Citgo station, The Suns azimuth and altitude at that time of day. It all adds up.

 

[TC329]

And have you ever stopped and pondered what if they (and you) are wrong?

Prove that it is impossible for flight 93 to have crashed in shanksville.

I've already proven in the McClatchey thread that is moderated that the official Flight 93 story is not true. The plane flew over Indian Lake. Most debunkers are avoiding this thread altogether and the mods seem to take hours upon hours before approving my responses.

 

[PB&J]

I've already proven in the McClatchey thread that is moderated that the official Flight 93 story is not true. The plane flew over Indian Lake. Most debunkers are avoiding this thread altogether and the mods seem to take hours upon hours before approving my responses.

Let's not derail?

By the way, didn't Mike Walter release a video where he denounced any kind of CT that twisted his testimony to fit their warped theories?

 

[TC329]

They simply cannot be right. There is no passenger plane in existence that can make that banking maneuver at that speed. Face it Dom. what they saw was the shadow of the plane to the north because of the topography of the area. The steep drop off from the Annex to the Citgo station, The Suns azimuth and altitude at that time of day. It all adds up.

They're not pointing at the ground when they place it and they're not seeing shadows in the sky. That is the 2nd worse excuse I ever saw as a debunk. The absolute worst being the guy who wanted to convince people the UAV Mrs. McElwain witnessed in Stoystown was actually Flight 93 reflecting off of her van windshield from a couple miles away. That one still has my top seed. But keep trying.

I personally speaking on my behalf and not for CIT, I would drop the flyover claim before I dropped the North side claim or insisted these people were seeing shadows.

But then what does that leave us in regards to the "mechanical flight path damage" and ASCE report?

So yep, it must have flown over............

 

[funk de fino]

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".

5) You then said you could not be bothered trying to phone in.

Because the truth means everything TC?

 

[A W Smith]

They're not pointing at the ground when they place it and they're not seeing shadows in the sky. That is the 2nd worse excuse I ever saw as a debunk. The absolute worst being the guy who wanted to convince people the UAV Mrs. McElwain witnessed in Stoystown was actually Flight 93 reflecting off of her van windshield from a couple miles away. That one still has my top seed. But keep trying.

I personally speaking on my behalf and not for CIT, I would drop the flyover claim before I dropped the North side claim or insisted these people were seeing shadows.

But then what does that leave us in regards to the "mechanical flight path damage" and ASCE report?

So yep, it must have flown over............

which makes more sense than a drone plane flying UNDER.. yes thats UNDER the telephone wires alongside the road she was driving. Some bald guy with swiss cheese for brains told us that one.