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

[TC329]

Dom, if you take everything he says as 100% infallible, then you also must admit:

1. It was an AA jet
2. It hit the Pentagon

Both of which destroy CIT's fantasy theory.

PB&J, this guy is one of your star eyewitnesses. A USA Today reporter.

One time he sees the plane hitting light poles another time he doesn't.
One time he sees a graceful bank and pivot and nose dive and another he sees it come in smooth and level.
One time he sees it hitting the Pentagon and another the plane is obstructed by the trees on Route 27.

On Sept 12 6.00am ET, Bryant Gumbel from CBS interviewed Walter. Mr. MIKE WALTER (Witness): Good morning, Bryant. GUMBEL: I know we spoke earlier, but obviously, some folks are just joining us. Take us through what you saw yesterday morning.

Mr. WALTER: Well, as--as we pointed out earlier, Bryant, I was on an elevated area of Highway 27 and I had a very good view. I was stuck in traffic. We weren't moving and--and I could see over in the distance the American Airlines jet as it kind of banked around, pivoted and then took a steep dive right into the Pentagon. There was no doubt in my mind watching this that whoever was at the controls knew exactly what he was doing. It was full impact, a huge fireball, thick column of smoke and, you know, pandemonium after that. I mean, bedlam. Everyone was trying to escape the area; people very, very frightened.

GUMBEL: Did you see it hit the Pentagon? Was the plane coming in horizontally or did it, in fact, go on its wing as--as it impacted the building?

Mr. WALTER: You know, the--the--the--there were trees there that kind of obstructed it, so I kind of--I saw it go in. I'm not sure if it turned at an angle. I've heard some people say that's what it did. All I know is it--it created a huge explosion and massive fireball and--and you knew instantaneously that--that everybody on that plane was dead. It was completely eviscerated.

And from the same show

GUMBEL: Tell me, if you could, about the manner in which the--the plane struck the building. I ask that because, in the pictures we have seen, it appears to be a gash in the side of the Pentagon as if the plane went in vertically as opposed to horizontally. Can you tell me anything about that?

Mr. WALTER: Well, as I said, you know, there were trees obstructing my view, so I saw it as it went--and then the--then the trees, and then I saw the--the fireball and the smoke. Some people have said that the plane actually sent on its side and in that way. But I can't tell you, Bryant. I just know that what I saw was this massive fireball, a huge explosion and--and a--the thick column of smoke and then an absolute bedlam on those roads as people were trying to get away. I mean, some people were going on the emergency lanes, and they were going forward while others were trying to back up. But one woman in front of me was in a panic and waving everyone back, saying, 'Back up. Back up. They've just hit the Pentagon.' It was--it was total chaos.​

​

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]These are the trees Russell Pickering notes on his image that shows Mike Walter's position on the highway...[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]http://www.pentagonresearch.com/085.html[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]

"There are some trees that are adjacent to 27 the road I was stuck on, so the jet went out of sight momentarily. Then I picked it up as it struck very low into the Pentagon. "http://www.pentagonresearch.com/mike.html
[/FONT]

Then CIT went to that location and proved Mike Walter really couldn't see anything.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I am very open to the possibility that they could be wrong/mistaken.

you most absolutely are not ope to that possibility. It's the ONLY evidence that supports your claim and you use it to dismiss all other evidence. You guys claim that everything else is faked or wrong. And all of the rests on the accounts of 4 people, who could very easily be wrong. Not only could they be, but they quite obviously are wrong. But not their fault since it's very common and something found in any such event (people remembering incorrectly).

You can't afford to be open to the common phenomenon of witnesses remembering such events incorrectly because it would mean your entire CIT story falling apart. All the rest of it is far fetched conjecture invented based on this low level evidence. You claim because of their accounts the plane couldn't have hit the ight poles. Yet you know that any other explanation is so much more far fetched than any theory you are trying to disprove.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

And just a reminder again. What TC is doing is using the most unreliable form of evidence to simply dismiss all the much more abundant and more reliable evidence. He's also cherry picking as he uses the testimony of the 4 people who's accounts don't agree with anyone else's and using that to dismiss all the other accounts. One of these 4 people is acceptable, yet witnesses talking about identifying the plane at the scene are not.

He will use their lack of seeing an impact as evidence of there not being one, yet pay no attention to the complete lack of anyone seeing a fly over.

 

[Bobert]

And just a reminder again. What TC is doing is using the most unreliable form of evidence to simply dismiss all the much more abundant and more reliable evidence. He's also cherry picking as he uses the testimony of the 4 people who's accounts don't agree with anyone else's and using that to dismiss all the other accounts. One of these 4 people is acceptable, yet witnesses talking about identifying the plane at the scene are not.

He will use their lack of seeing an impact as evidence of there not being one, yet pay no attention to the complete lack of anyone seeing a fly over.

Insanity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search

Inmates at Bedlam Asylum, as portrayed by William Hogarth


Traditionally, insanity or madness is the behaviour whereby a person flouts societal norms and becomes a danger to himself and others. Greek tragedies and Shakespeare often refer to madness in this sense. Psychologically, it is a general popular and legal term defining behaviour influenced by mental instability. It is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as a deranged state of the mind or lack of understanding. Today, it is most commonly encountered as an informal term or in the narrow legal context of the insanity defense, and in the medical profession the term is now avoided in favour of specific diagnoses of mental illness as schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders.[1] When discussing mental illness in general terms, "psychopathology" is also considered a preferred descriptor.[2]

 

[A W Smith]

I wouldn't call it that one.

When Sean Boger describes the planes bank it places it crossing over the Navy Annex onto the North side of the Citgo station.

So who would be in the best position to witness this bank and where it occurs?

1) Edward Paik (you know his location)
2) Mike Walter (you know his location)
3) Sean Boger (the Heliport Tower at the Pentagon facing the Citgo station)


Come on A W, if you're honest you will at least acknowledge Boger is the best eyewitness to state where the bank occured and where it finished.

Or is Sean Boger watching a shadow on the North side of the Citgo too?

"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."

Now does Boger claim the plane impacted the Pentagon to the left of the control tower or the right? he clealy states one month after the attack that he "watched it hit the building" This makes the north of Citgo flight path a physical impossibility. It simply cannot bank around the station at any speed. If I saw a plane heading towards me I certainly wouldn't be staring at a gas station with a dark backdrop of trees. My eyes would be fixed on a big effin plane! After six years he is simply mistaken.

 

[beachnut]

PB&J, this guy is one of your star eyewitnesses. A USA Today reporter.

One time he sees the plane hitting light poles another time he doesn't.
One time he sees a graceful bank and pivot and nose dive and another he sees it come in smooth and level.
One time he sees it hitting the Pentagon and another the plane is obstructed by the trees on Route 27.

[/i]
[/indent][FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]These are the trees Russell Pickering notes on his image that shows Mike Walter's position on the highway...[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]http://www.pentagonresearch.com/085.html[/FONT]

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]

Then CIT went to that location and proved Mike Walter really couldn't see anything.

Now all you need is to debunk all the DNA, tell all the people who lost love ones there was a faked DNA thing and present your evidence, earn the Pulitzer Prize, and make us look bad.

But the fact is the Pulitzer Prize is given out for great news stories with facts and evidence and even go as high as exposing the President of the United States for covering up simple crimes like Watergate! But you have zero, ZERO, facts and evidence to even make a dent in but winning the minds of people who have zero knowledge on 9/11!

You are a failure! No Pulitzer Prize means your smoking gun is a kid's water gun, not even loaded! Failure with a capital CIT!

You guys are like a comedy sketch for math and physics majors! Zero evidence and facts to support you hearsay made up stories that you can not even claim a rational conclusion for.

BTW, tell jdx I erased the part that was wrong so he feels good, but then tell him you forgot to get the bad stuff on me! You guys could be famous if there was a prize for making up stories about people who died from terrorist. you guys are lame when it comes to ad hominem

The facts are the bank angle involved looked level. 11 degrees maximum. Gee to make any real turn to make a turn you need 25 to 30 degrees of bank. At 470 mph you need lots of bank to make big turns like your IMPOSSIBLE turns to make a north approach from were even your own witnesses see the plane seconds before impact! LOL, you guys are not very good at making up stories that fit the real world and can be backed by physics. Doubt (if your math and physics is as good on this subject as the last time you posted numbers so far off you made physics teachers a good example for teaching physics) you can even figure out the turn radius and G force required for any of your false made up lies about the Pentagon as you twist witnesses statements into your failed story. lol

Last seconds were all under 10 degree of bank! Kind of level looking for some, or a gentle bank! Sorry you failed big time. Last 30 seconds the mag heading changed from 65 to 70 degrees. Not a big bank there. What are you saying? Just give up, your inability to use rational thought and logic are only showing how much you lack in analyzing witnesses statements and then ignoring all the evidence against you. You have zero evidence for you. How can you even argue with such lousy logic and no evidence? How can you take made up junk and spread it as if it was real?

 

[Bobert]

Amen

 

[PB&J]

PB&J, this guy is one of your star eyewitnesses. A USA Today reporter.

One time he sees the plane hitting light poles another time he doesn't.
One time he sees a graceful bank and pivot and nose dive and another he sees it come in smooth and level.
One time he sees it hitting the Pentagon and another the plane is obstructed by the trees on Route 27.

[/I]
[/INDENT][FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]These are the trees Russell Pickering notes on his image that shows Mike Walter's position on the highway...[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]http://www.pentagonresearch.com/085.html[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]

Then CIT went to that location and proved Mike Walter really couldn't see anything.

Dom, you could have just simply provided me with the link, but instead you felt the need to copy/paste the interview? Why? Is it not from a reputable source?

Like this one?

Or this one?

Or did you find this somewhere else? I can't for the life of me dig up a reliable source for this interview, but I'll gladly check back for other links.

Even so, if his accounts are contradictory, then you're still cherry picking that statement.

This is exactly what the rest of CIT does. If it doesn't match their theory, they discredit the people for the parts of their testimony that doesn't fit their theory.

However, if a witness comes along that they can reallllly milk (Steve Chaconas), then suddenly this person's testimony becomes Gospel. It's so blatant it's almost sad.

We're supposed to believe that's the exact spot Walters was? Remember what CIT did to Kieth Wheelhouse and his location to discredit him? I smell more of the same.

 

[Reheat]

CIT (North of Citgo) is FINISHED!

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?

The map you've just displayed shows an IMPOSSIBLE flight path. It's even worse than the previous one displayed.

If the aircraft passed North of the Citgo and then began a turn toward the impact point, it's NOT POSSIBLE that it could also pull up to fly over the Pentagon. IMPOSSIBLE! The number of lateral G's required to make the turn make any vertical G to pull up impossible. No fixed wing conventional aircraft in existence could do that.

You guys don't need to argue with TC about all of the CIT witness junk, just remind him that the aircraft turns at 4 degrees per second at 60 degrees of bank. If they want the aircraft to turn faster, it must pull lateral G's in which case it could then not pull the vertical G's for a pullup. The turn required from Paik's business direct to a position North of the Citgo then to the impact point at the Pentagon creates an impossible maneuver for any fixed wing conventional aircraft. That is at least 10 degrees of turn and there is no time to do it even at 60 degrees of bank, 2 G all of the way. If they argue about a steeper bank, higher G, then the aircraft CANNOT pull up to fly over the Pentagon.

In other words CIT is in a "pickle" with an IMPOSSIBLE turn to fly North of the Citgo after passing directly over Paik's position and also pull up over the impact point. At the mutually agreed upon speed it can not happen in any large aircraft in existence. At the given speed, even an F-16 could not complete that turn starting at the Citgo station and also pull up to fly over the Pentagon. At the given speed it is an impossible maneuver for any fixed wing aircraft currently in existance on the face of the earth, except fighters with vectored thrust and even then it might not be possible.

There, I've repeated myself enough, finally.

 

[pomeroo]

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.

Here again is the reason you were judged unsuitable to appear on 'Hardfire.' You proved nothing. You took a confused person and extrapolated wildly from her mistaken impressions.

 

[PB&J]

( ... ) I don't recall CIT ever having a "remote control planes" and "gassing of passengers" those sound more like the claims of fake truther Russell "Mission Accomplished" Pickering and Alex Jones.

You just used pickering's site as a reference to your walter's claims, and now you're bashing him?

This gets weirded by the minute.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Please list what "investigation background, credentials, experience" are required to walk up to people with a video camera and ask them questions about an event they witnessed.

Nothing is required to walk up to people and ask them about what they witnessed. BUT a knowledge of Investigation ARE required to get relevant information out of them. Or I suppose you believe that people spend years studying journalism for no reason.

 

[AMTMAN]

Please list what "investigation background, credentials, experience" are required to walk up to people with a video camera and ask them questions about an event they witnessed.

Tell me, what qualifies Aldo to say that it was not a 767 that hit the North Tower. Does he have a backgound in aviation that he has not bothered to tell anyone about? Or is this a case of Aldo talking about something which he is has no clue about?

 

[TC329]

And just a reminder again. What TC is doing is using the most unreliable form of evidence to simply dismiss all the much more abundant and more reliable evidence.

Fact : People in this country are given the death penalty over "the most unreliable form of evidence". Especially when the witnesses corroborate the claims repeatedly.

Paik & Boger place the plane crossing over to the North side of the Navy Annex. Boger is in a position to confirm it went to the North side, the direction Paik puts it traveling in. CIT confirms Boger's claim of the plane crossing over the Navy Annex with Steve Ross on the phone. Phone call is recorded but Ross does not give CIT permission to release it. Naturally in a criminal case the witness would be called to the stand.

After it crosses over to the North side of the Navy Annex it is witnessed by Turcios, Sgt LaGasse, Sgt Brooks, & Levi Stephens.

Not one of these witnesses sees the plane wreaking havoc tearing light poles out the ground and throwing them about the highway impaling cars or tearing through trees and a generator. Not one.

"Light Pole Witnesses" Joel Sucherman and Father McGraw are asked about this and both concede they really did not witness the plane doing any such thing on it's way to the Pentagon and merely deduced all of this after the fact.

Then the plane hit the building from the North side of the Citgo station.

Show me what is wrong in the above according to the evidence presented by CIT.

 

[TC329]

Here again is the reason you were judged unsuitable to appear on 'Hardfire.' You proved nothing. You took a confused person and extrapolated wildly from her mistaken impressions.

I'm sorry Ron, I missed where you addressed Jim Stop seeing the plane at Indian Lake and John Fleegle saying he heard it fly over the Marina he was in at Indian Lake. All of which corroborates Val hearing Flight 93 fly over her house towards the crash site.

I know the mods are slow approving replies in that thread, perhaps they missed yours?

 

[AMTMAN]

Nothing is required to walk up to people and ask them about what they witnessed. BUT a knowledge of Investigation ARE required to get relevant information out of them. Or I suppose you believe that people spend years studying journalism for no reason.

Add to that most reputable journalists do not start out with thier own agenda and do not attack people the way CIT does.

 

[pomeroo]

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

And you were wrong.

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

No, you misunderstood. The BBC was filming part of the show with Arthur Scheuerman and Mark for use in their own documentary on WTC 7. No one representing the BBC was "on" 'Hardfire,'

3) I accepted your invitation.

I mistakenly thought you had something to say.

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".

Why am I covering anything? You are just another know-nothing fantasist. Should I round up the drooling morons who carry signs at Ground Zero and ask them to debate Mark?

 

[pomeroo]

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).

Classic Stundie! Your confused, cherry-picked witnesses make mutually-exclusive claims. But asking them to abandon at least one of them is a rabid demand?? Do you understand why you silly liars are laughingstocks?

 

[pomeroo]

I'm sorry Ron, I missed where you addressed Jim Stop seeing the plane at Indian Lake and John Fleegle saying he heard it fly over the Marina he was in at Indian Lake. All of which corroborates Val hearing Flight 93 fly over her house towards the crash site.

I know the mods are slow approving replies in that thread, perhaps they missed yours?

You conspiracy liars are welcome to cling to your discredited "witnesses" while dismissing the much larger number of real witnesses who refute your deranged fantasy. Remember, the Penta-conmen were forced to admit that no one actually observed their imaginary flyover. Before fleeing with his tail between his legs, Ranke admitted that he will never take his fabricated rubbish to a real news outlet.

 

[Horatius]

Apparently, my post got caught in some sort of thread split!

So you can corroborate a plane flying under telephone wires? That's some impressive flying, there!