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

[AMTMAN]

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.

.

Very bad comparison. You know why, not one of the people CIT has "interviewed" says they saw something other than a 757 hit the Pentagon or pull up and fly away from the Pentagon.

Here's the other problem, the mountain of pyhsical evidence and eyewitness testimony says it was a 757 that did hit the Pentagon. CIT has yet to prove otherwise. So far all they have done with all their "smoking gun" evidence is troll internet message boards and get suckers to buy DVD's.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

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.

TC grew up on a cherry farm. Old habits die hard...

 

[A W Smith]

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.

Here ya go.. This is whats wrong. The flight path is a physical impossibility. Show your math to prove otherwise.

 

[uruk]

Let's say for the sake of argument that I, Domenick (not CIT) concede the plane impacted the building. Then I would still stick to the North side because that's where the witnesses place it.

Yea, only four wttnesses

So to me this means the plane didn't penetrate the building too far, most likely wasn't AA77 or any 757, and all the damage inside was still mostly the result of preplanted explosions with the impact being the cover for the bombs.

Bombs tend to blow things away from the explosives. Notice in all the pictures there is practicaly no building material ejected from the building. what little debrie that lies outside the building is, relatively light, fuselage material. The majority of the plane being within the building.

That's what happens when I concede that it impacted.

If (and that's a big "IF") a plane hit the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11/2001 then it did so approaching from the North side of the Citgo station as corroborated by eyewitnesses again and again and again.

The "again and again" doesn't count whenever you replay the stupid video.

And I do that without dismissing a single aspect of their testimony.

You guys on the other hand have to throw out every single thing they say still before the word "impact" to secure your little fantasy.

Just like you throw the majority of the wittness testimony that contradicts the four guys Craig and Aldo interviewed.

 

[MIKILLINI]

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.

TC, I know you put considerable effort into your research and still you are not convinced flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

Now this leaves you with 2 probable scenarios. 1.) The use of this forum in an attempt to find indisputable evidence that would convince you flight 77 did crash into the Pentagon.
Or you believe the evidence doesn't prove flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon and are attempting to prove it didn't. Which is it?

If you don't believe flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, then this leads to scenario #2.) There is no evidence of this plane found anywhere else. There is no evidence of it's passengers found anywhere else.
Has your research been able to locate flight 77 or it's passengers anywhere else?

 

[TC329]

And you were wrong.

I was?

So are you calling Mrs. McElwain and Ms. Weyant liars?

I already released Susan's interview in full and uncut. What are you so afraid of Ron?

Think the BBC would be pressured into releasing that info and then expose the small UAV which was at the crash site the moment the plane hit the ground that morning???

Then what would happen to their credibility?

To the Official 9/11 Story credibility???

And gasp....dare to think....even your own credibility???????

You're a coward Ron. I call you and the BBC out repeatedly and repeatedly you run like a beaten puppy with your tail between your legs whimpering. If you're so right why don't you make this happen?

Huh, Ron?

If you have so much faith in your Bush Administration fairy tale and so much faith in your idols Hannity & O'Reilly then why don't make it happen?

Do you realize the tremendous backlash this could have across the 9/11 community if I am proven to be a liar and a fraud?

I'm giving you the opportunity Champ. Step up. Bring it. You and your BBC buddies vs. little old me.

I await your next pathetic excuse Ron and add just another notch to the list of times I have publicly humiliated you, you little con man.

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,'

The reason I "misunderstood" is because you shot off your mouth. You didn't have to stick your own foot in your mouth, I put mine in your mouth first. Now I know what your excuse will be in advance of your reply.

I don't understand why you would invite me onto a show to confront people who had nothing to do with my accusation but that is your new story and I'm sure you're sticking to it.

The fact is by releasing the completely uncut interview with Mrs. McElwain I have already proven the entire BBC/History Channel debacle to be a total farce. By disproving one single aspect of their version of Historical events I have cast a shadow of doubt over the rest.

I mistakenly thought you had something to say.

I have a lot to say. A lot your friend Mark doesn't want to talk about.

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?

If you want to embarrass Mark you could.

 

[Bobert]

TC are you an agent?
Who are you working for?
I think you are disinfo!

 

[Brainache]

He certainly doesn't seem to want to let reality interfere with his world view.

 

[Reheat]

Think the BBC would be pressured into releasing that info and then expose the small UAV which was at the crash site the moment the plane hit the ground that morning???

You're really funny! I mean belly laugh hilarious.

You can't do the math that shows AA77 could perform the North of Citgo and flyover simply because you don't know how to do it. In addition, if you did you'd realize how stupid the scenario is because you (and your buds) have created an impossible scenario. Did you hear me?

No, aircraft can maneuver as you depict it maneuvering. Physical impossibility! You won't address that because you CAN'T!

Now, you drone on with this UAV garbage. Did you once stop to ask yourself how "they" knew where to preposition this imaginary UAV? One that can fly below utility lines, leap tall buildings with a single bound, stop bullets, and single handedly stop a moving train all while remaining totally silent. How did "they" know to preposition it in that Shanksville neighborhood?

 

[uruk]

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.

One of Paik's drawings show the planes path clearly passing to the south of the CITGO. And it's the picture that is close to Paik's point of view. Odd, that you keep ignoring that picture.

Also the phone call doesn't count unless we can hear it to verify it's veracity. We only have Craig and Aldo's word on it. And considering thier "investigation" skills it seem highly suspect.

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

Four guys against many. Wow that's like convicting a person with murder based on the testimony of one guy when the fifty other witnesses at the scene says the guy is innocent.

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..

So you see the unusual spectacle of a 747 crashing into a building and you are expect to notice something like ancillary damage?

"Oh my god! that air plane crashed into that building! Oh and the paint was scratched on the aileron

Oh, and the one guy who's car was actually impaled by a light pole is convienently labeled a government plant, Why? Simply because his incident pretty much trashes thier hypothesis.

Way to cherry pick and ignore evidence.

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.

The "evidence" CIT gathered is hamfisted and cherry picked. It's complete crap.

 

[jaydeehess]

Let's say for the sake of argument that I, Domenick (not CIT) concede the plane impacted the building. Then I would still stick to the North side because that's where the witnesses place it.

So to me this means the plane didn't penetrate the building too far, most likely wasn't AA77 or any 757, and all the damage inside was still mostly the result of preplanted explosions with the impact being the cover for the bombs.

That's what happens when I concede that it impacted.

If (and that's a big "IF") a plane hit the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11/2001 then it did so approaching from the North side of the Citgo station as corroborated by eyewitnesses again and again and again.

And I do that without dismissing a single aspect of their testimony.

You guys on the other hand have to throw out every single thing they say still before the word "impact" to secure your little fantasy.

Really? You still have not explained how the plane could follow a flightpath that has it making the turn to impact the Pentagon. You also simply ignore the fact that Paik illustrates two different paths for the plane, one's gotta go. Either the plane went over the annex to the north of its center, or the south corner. You still have to ignore all wording such as, "its hard to say exactly" qualifiers. You also have to dismiss the fact that Turcios originally points to the south and says that the planes passed over the station there, only to change his mind not once, but twice, at the leading of good ol' Craig.

You steadfastly refuse to show any calculations that would illustrate that the plane could make that turn and thus illustrate that the witnesses could be correct.
You steadfastly refuse to address the calculations made by others here that illustrate that it could not do so and therefore that the witnesses are incorrect.
You ignore the basic fact that so many other witnesses contradict the north-of-Citgo paths (plural) reported by the minority and instead attempt to push that minority view as correct while denigrating the majority as either incorrect or shills for a vast and complicated conspiracy.

Conceding an impact means you throw out less of the statements of all witnesses but you are still dismissing much of what the majority did say.

 

[DavidJames]

TC329 - Why haven't CIT taken this blockbuster evidence to the authorities or to the main stream media. Craig has claimed he has, but refuses to provide evidence. Why? It's a win / win for him. If he did and they act, he can blow his own horn. If he did and they ignore him he can claim they are covering up. I believe he's full of **** and a pathological liar. I believe all he cares about is trying to get attention among like minded delusional half wits. If he actually did go to the media or authorities his scam would be exposed and he would be exposed as the fraud he really his. What's his latest excuse TC?

 

[Myriad]

By disproving one single aspect of their version of Historical events I have cast a shadow of doubt over the rest.

Congratulations for inspiring a new metaphor for the Truth Movement: People who lock themselves into dark rooms and claim they've extinguished the sun.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Reheat]

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.

It doesn't matter if you produce 1000 witnesses, it must be physically possible for an aircraft to do what you and your witnesses say it did.

You can't do that because it COULD NOT and CIT is fraudulently promoting an impossibility due to aircraft performance.

 

[TC329]

Here ya go.. This is whats wrong. The flight path is a physical impossibility. Show your math to prove otherwise.

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/edpaiksextendedpath3.jpg

Sean Boger's account says the math isn't physically impossible at all. Same with Ross' corroboration.

Have you found any witnesses that were tearing light poles out of the ground, shredding tress, and /or hitting a generator and filmed them on location for us yet?


Listen A W, the bottom line is you either think the witnesses brought forward to date are liars or not. You do not have to agree with any conclusion made by CIT. Not a single one.

Are the witnesses telling the truth or not?

 

[uruk]

Have you found any witnesses that were tearing light poles out of the ground, shredding tress, and /or hitting a generator and filmed them on location for us yet?

You are expecting people who are focused on the airplane (a large object) to notice it impacting on small objects like the light poles? Expecting quite alot from them aren't you?

And what about Lloyd?

 

[Brainache]

Sean Boger's account says the math isn't physically impossible at all. Same with Ross' corroboration.

Have you found any witnesses that were tearing light poles out of the ground, shredding tress, and /or hitting a generator and filmed them on location for us yet?


Listen A W, the bottom line is you either think the witnesses brought forward to date are liars or not. You do not have to agree with any conclusion made by CIT. Not a single one.

Are the witnesses telling the truth or not?

Why do you ignore the possibility that the witnesses are mistaken?

 

[jaydeehess]

Sean Boger's account says the math isn't physically impossible at all. Same with Ross' corroboration.

Have you found any witnesses that were tearing light poles out of the ground, shredding tress, and /or hitting a generator and filmed them on location for us yet?


Listen A W, the bottom line is you either think the witnesses brought forward to date are liars or not. You do not have to agree with any conclusion made by CIT. Not a single one.

Are the witnesses telling the truth or not?

They are incorrect. "Telling the truth" implies a conscious act of deception would be considered appropriate. Such is not the case as far as we are concerned regarding those witnesses. I cannot say the same for the CIT and their opinion of the witnesses who contradict the conjectured north route.

 

[PB&J]

Sean Boger's account says the math isn't physically impossible at all.

You heard it here first folks. Officially: Witness testimony > Math. We're going to have to completely redo physics now, great.

 

[jaydeehess]

You are expecting people who are focused on the airplane (a large object) to notice it impacting on small objects like the light poles? Expecting quite alot from them aren't you?

And what about Lloyd?

According to the CIT the posts were either quickly planted but no one noticed that either. Conversly, they contend, the posts might have had charges in them to cause them to topple at a remote command to do so. No evidence of such is produced and one has to wonder at the person responsible for setting off the toppling mechanism. He sees the plane coming, it will obviously not follow a path over the poles but instead of aborting this rather meaningless detail he sets it off anyway.
Then there is the fact that TPTB got real lucky and no one noticed the posts toppling for no apparent reason just as no one noticed a plane roaring up and over the Pentagon(oops, TC concedes that. aaah, but the CIT do not of course)