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

[uruk]

Are the witnesses telling the truth or not?

False dichonomy. They could simply be mistaken or lead by the interviewer.

As trained as they are, Cops are still human. And beat cops are not trained the same as detectives.


Logical fallacies. The stock and trade of truthers.

 

[uruk]

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

Testimony cannot over rule the laws of physics

 

[jaydeehess]

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

or that Boger is incorrect, or that the CIT comprehension of his statement is incorrect and the math is correct.

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?

Actually should you not have witnesses to poles being planted or toppling for no reason, or generators moving towards an explosion, or 90 feet of first floor wall being propelled into a building that had explosives going off inside it.

 

[TC329]

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?

Oh now the claim is that since I haven't done it I can't?

Since you claim is to be physically impossible for "an aircraft" to pull this maneuver then you've obviously done the math for that so how about you present it?

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

That's both bold and ignorant on your part. I will expect you to prove your claim that it would be impossible for an aircraft to fly over to the North side of the Navy Annex and Citgo station as described by multiple corroborating witnesses.

The witnesses make a claim.
CIT presents the witnesses.
You claim the witness claims are physically impossible.
Then you demand CIT prove you wrong.

I'm sorry but that's not how it works. You think the witnesses are lying because it is "physically impossible for an aircraft" to do this bank maneuver then you need to bring that evidence to the table.

Now, you drone on with this UAV garbage. Did you once stop to ask yourself how "they" knew where to preposition this imaginary UAV?

Are you familiar with Southwestern PA and locations of Military bases therein?

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?

The flying below utility lines is an estimate admittedly deduced by the eyewitness. The eyewitness stresses that this is their "belief". The whole of the claim doesn't lie on whether or not a drone plane flew above or below power lines but 10' above those same lines would most likely give the same impression. Especially since the witness admits that she believes it was under the lines and not that she knows it was.

Source

Source

Orbiter Mini UAV System

It seems very much like a glider with a minimum power super quiet brushless electric motor pusher prop to gain altitude. - Orbiter

Wingspan 7.2 feet

http://www.defense-update.com/images/orbiter-land.jpg
Orbiter Micro UAV is under development at Aeronautics Defense Systems in Israel. With a maximum takeoff weight of 6.5 kg the flying-wing shaped Orbiter can carry a payload of 1.2kg weight at an altitude of up to 10,000 feet, flying a mission of up to 90 minutes at 500 – 2,000 feet above ground level. Orbiter is designed for simple and easy operation by a single operator. It is autonomous (existing or capable of existing independently) throughout its mission including during launch and recovery, and therefore requires minimal training for operation or support.

Orbiter is equipped with an electro-optical color payload, fitted with CCD sensor with x10 optical zoom for daylight operations. An optional night sensor uses low-light level camera. The weight of the D-STAMP daylight payload is 650 gr. A night capable payload is also in development - it will weigh 0.98 kg.
http://www.defense-update.com/images/orbiter03.jpg

With a low acoustic signature, Orbiter is optimized for silent operation even at very low level. Equipped with an advanced avionic package, GPS and inertial navigation system (INS) and datalink system, Orbiter provides real-time transmission of imagery from up to 15 km. The Orbiter length is 1 meter (3.28 ft) and its span is 2.2 meters (7.2 ft)
http://www.defense-update.com/products/o/Orbiter.htm

Source

Silent operation at very low level.
7 foot wingspan. (i.e. not "much" (if at all) wider than a van.)
Real time transmission of imagery.
In this photo, the Orbiter is gliding with the motor stopped and the propeller folded back.
http://www.defense-update.com/images/orbiter-land.jpg[/img]
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/uav/orbiter/orbiter_11.jpg
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/uav/orbiter/orbiter_4.JPG
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/uav/orbiter/orbiter_1.jpg
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/uav/orbiter/orbiter_14_.jpg

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/uav/orbiter/orbiter_5.JPG
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/uav/orbiter/orbiter_13_.jpg

I am not claiming that is the exact type of plane although I have an eyewitness that stated that is the closest thing they've ever seen to the plane they saw on 9/11 and I'm not talking about Susan McElwain either....or at least not yet anyways.

Do not hotlink images.

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

 

[MIKILLINI]

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

The truther logic and their inability to concede to facts is depicted here:

 

[jaydeehess]

TC, am I on ignore?

 

[TC329]

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?

What about Lloyd?

Watch and listen to Lloyd's account.

Pay attention to his reaction when Pickering asks him to demonstrate how he removed the light pole from his cab. Pay extra special attention to that part.

Lloyd

Then come back here and tell me what you think about Lloyd's story now that you have the opportunity to hear he himself tell it. K?

 

[Reheat]

Oh now the claim is that since I haven't done it I can't?

Apparently so.

Since you claim is to be physically impossible for "an aircraft" to pull this maneuver then you've obviously done the math for that so how about you present it?

I've done it twice already in this thread. Are you blind?

That's both bold and ignorant on your part. I will expect you to prove your claim that it would be impossible for an aircraft to fly over to the North side of the Navy Annex and Citgo station as described by multiple corroborating witnesses.

I already have, you've just ignored it. If I'm ignorant, prove it with numbers. Double dog dare you to prove me wrong. Come on you've made a bold statement and insulted me, so prove me wrong with number to prove it. If you can't then I can play your game too and call you a bald faced liar.

The witnesses make a claim. CIT presents the witnesses. You claim the witness claims are physically impossible.
Then you demand CIT prove you wrong.

I haven't DEMANDED anything, it's merely a request, ahhhhh so you don't appear to be stupid, you know.

I'm sorry but that's not how it works. You think the witnesses are lying because it is "physically impossible for an aircraft" to do this bank maneuver then you need to bring that evidence to the table.

For the third time, it's posted and verifiable by virtually any qualified pilot, provable math, or online calculators. It's not on the table, it's in a post, but you might want to eat it. It's delicious and is known as "crow".

Are you familiar with Southwestern PA and locations of Military bases therein?

I'm more familiar than you are. Now answer the question. How did "they" know to preposition the "UAV" in that location?

"incoherent babble"

 

[TC329]

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

Because I find it impossible for that many people to corroborate the same version if it was a mistake.

Q: Did you see it hit any light poles?
A: No.

Q: Where did you see the plane approach from?
A: The North side of the Citgo station.

Add in 2 star light pole witnesses admitting on film that they did not witness the poles being struck either and merely deduced it after the fact and there is every reason to be highly skeptical of the official story.

Add Lloyd's own words to it and it seals the deal.

 

[HyJinX]

Seals what, exactly? You're complete lack of sensibility?

 

[uruk]

Oh now the claim is that since I haven't done it I can't?

Well, can you?

Since you claim is to be physically impossible for "an aircraft" to pull this maneuver then you've obviously done the math for that so how about you present it?

Typical truther tactic. When asked to support thier claim they try to shift the burden of proof.

That's both bold and ignorant on your part. I will expect you to prove your claim that it would be impossible for an aircraft to fly over to the North side of the Navy Annex and Citgo station as described by multiple corroborating witnesses.

It was only four wittnesses out all the total number of wittnesses.

The witnesses make a claim.
CIT presents the witnesses.
You claim the witness claims are physically impossible.
Then you demand CIT prove you wrong.

You have this totaly wrong. CIT makes the claim that the "official" explination is a lie.

Then CIT finds a minority of testimony that supports it's presupposed conclusion amidst the sea of other testimony that contradicts thier claim. That's called cherry picking BTW.

You know, investigators and scientsts gather evidence first then make a claim based on the evidence, not the other way around.

Jref claims the CIT's interpretation of the wittnesses testimony is flawed and asks CIT to back up thier claims.

CIT attemps to shift burden of proof.

Jref calls them on it.

CIT changes the subject.

 

[HyJinX]

Tc...you're sad, dude, sad.

 

[gc051360]

Because I find it impossible for that many people to corroborate the same version if it was a mistake.

Q: Did you see it hit any light poles?
A: No.

Q: Where did you see the plane approach from?
A: The North side of the Citgo station.

Add in 2 star light pole witnesses admitting on film that they did not witness the poles being struck either and merely deduced it after the fact and there is every reason to be highly skeptical of the official story.

Add Lloyd's own words to it and it seals the deal.

What did those witnesses say hit the Pentagon?

 

[CurtC]

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

I don't think you understand the depth of the problem you and CIT have found yourselves in. We know the plane was right at the hole in the Pentagon. IF the plane went North of the Citgo like some of the witnesses recall, then there is no way it could have flown over Ed Paik. IF it flew over Ed Paik, it could not have gone North of the Citgo.

It's simple physics. Propose a path that you think the plane might have flown, I'll show you why it was impossible.

 

[uruk]

What about Lloyd?

Watch and listen to Lloyd's account.

Pay attention to his reaction when Pickering asks him to demonstrate how he removed the light pole from his cab. Pay extra special attention to that part.

Lloyd

Then come back here and tell me what you think about Lloyd's story now that you have the opportunity to hear he himself tell it. K?

Yea, Ive seen the video several times before. Lloyd pauses then says he doesn't remember exactly what position he was in when he and the "good samaritan" pulled out the pole. It's an honest answer. If Lloyed was a plant he would have had his story straight and not paused in uncertainty.

Imagine that you are driveing a cab on the highway about 55 to 60 MPH. Without warning a huge pole goes smashing into you car narrowly missing you by inches. You have to wrestle with the car to keep from losing control and flipping over.

Now what kind of condition physicaly and mentaly are you going to be in? Come on, answer honestly. With all that adrenalin running through your system and possibly being close to shock, do you think you are going to be any condition to remember everything precisly?

And I don't think you are going to notice the explosion going on several hundred yards away from you because you are going to be seriously distracted with keeping control of the car with a huge pole stiking out of it. Something that Aldo and Craig seem to be forgetting or purposly ignoring in the video.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

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.

FACT*** Only if it's the ONLY evidence and ONLY if it is in context with the rest of the evidence. People aren't given death sentences when there is far more overwhelming evidence that contradicts eyewitness testimony of some. especially when the majority of the eyewitness testimony disagrees. In fact they would pretty much determine that the testimony that contradicts all the rest of the evidence must then be incorrect. YOU on the other hand are simply trying to find anything to support your pre-determined conclusions, hence using the unreliable evidence to dismiss the reliable evidence and then using pure conjecture to do so.

And notice they are not confirming the location of the plane, just their recollection. It's more common for people to remember such things incorrectly than correctly. The greater the impact of the situation, the more likely people are to remember incorrectly. The cult movement is simply trying to take advantage of this and this is why no legitimate people take CIT seriously.

None of those witnesses saw the light poles hit. Fine. none of them saw the plane fly over the Pentagon either. You don't seem to have a problem with that though do you? Because you are a hypocrite who cares nothing about truth.



We HAVE shown you what is wrong with the evidence. You are using unreliable evidence to dismiss reliable evidence.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Because I find it impossible for that many people to corroborate the same version if it was a mistake.

Q: Did you see it hit any light poles?
A: No.

Q: Where did you see the plane approach from?
A: The North side of the Citgo station.

Add in 2 star light pole witnesses admitting on film that they did not witness the poles being struck either and merely deduced it after the fact and there is every reason to be highly skeptical of the official story.

Add Lloyd's own words to it and it seals the deal.

It happens in almost any such large scale event. But this is one of the few surrounded by conspiracy cults so it only seems unusual. If you research the phenomenon you will see it's extremely common.

So tell us how many people witnessed others cutting down light poles. Please list them all.

 

[Brainache]

Because I find it impossible for that many people to corroborate the same version if it was a mistake.

Q: Did you see it hit any light poles?
A: No.

Q: Where did you see the plane approach from?
A: The North side of the Citgo station.

Add in 2 star light pole witnesses admitting on film that they did not witness the poles being struck either and merely deduced it after the fact and there is every reason to be highly skeptical of the official story.

Add Lloyd's own words to it and it seals the deal.

So if the deal is sealed, I assume you have discovered who faked all of the physical evidence and how they did it....

You know, the poles, the fence, the generator, the big hole in the wall, all the bits of plane debris, all the passenger DNA etc. All of it planted and/or faked in the seconds/minutes after the "event". You've got all of that figured out have you TC?

Or is this another "we don't have to have a theory" type thing?

Because you do know that faking all that stuff in such a way as to fool everyone and keep them fooled for ~seven years is the kind of thing that only happens in the movies and bad thriller novels... You do know that, don't you?

 

[uk_dave]

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 why don't you watch the video I posted regarding the unreliability of memory and then reconsider your position.

In that video people are asked to identify a drawing of a 1cent coin out of many incorrect representations. Something people in the US see virtually every day and yet can't immediately remember precisely what it looks like.

Or they are asked to memorize a series of words and to write them down and yet....well watch it to find out.

The point is, the final impact of the plane cannot be mistaken by the eyewitnesses. The exact flight path can be.

You're basing your faith in the 9-11 ct on eyewitness accounts which can be shown to be unreliable when they contradict the physical evidence.

Your chums at pft are incompetent enough to send you over here trumpeting their 'smoking gun' evidence which is then immediately found to be inaccurate and most certainly does not prove what they would have you believe it proves.

Shouldn't you reconsider the company you keep and the basis for your belief in the 9-11 ct, as it is built upon unreliable testimony and incompetent analysis?

 

[uk_dave]

I am not claiming that is the exact type of plane although I have an eyewitness that stated that is the closest thing they've ever seen to the plane they saw on 9/11 and I'm not talking about Susan McElwain either....or at least not yet anyways.

You mean you haven't persuaded her yet?

Is this some kind of sick game to you?