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

[TC329]

The fact that a person did not explicitly witness an event does not imply that the event did not happen.

Are you sure because I thought the standard here was a flyover didn't happen because no one witnessed it?

 

[Sparky]

If all the evidence points to Tom shooting someone with his gun but eyewitnesses come forward and say Bill shot the person then tell me (without lying if at all possible) who will the court and more importantly the jury believe?

Most likely Tom will be convicted. Eyewitness testimony is not held in high regard in a court of law.

 

[gc051360]

Are you sure because I thought the standard here was a flyover didn't happen because no one witnessed it?

The standard here is that there is no evidence of a flyover.

I have a question though.

What do the North of the Citgo witnesses say hit the Pentagon?

 

[A W Smith]

the damn thing is ALL WING!! Corroboration? I Think not.

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?



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

False Choice Logical Fallacy noted

because it is "physically impossible for an aircraft" to do this bank maneuver then you need to bring that evidence to the table.

That has already been done here. Have a reading problem do you?

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



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.

so it is Bogers "Belief" seven years later that he was under the impression that the plane flew north of the Citgo.. see how that works?

Source



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.

Susan McElwain is explicit in her description that what flew over her van HAD NO WINGS! Is this what your new witness describes as the closest description to what they have seen? and you call that corroboration??? and what has this small prop powered UAV alleged to have done? Chased down a jet flying over 500 mph and shot it down?

 

[DGM]

I'll even go as far as to say the plane hit the building but if it did then it hit it from the North side of the Citgo station as described by eyewitness again and again.

So what knocked down the light poles?

 

[The Big Dog]

TC said:

"The North side is the evidence.
The eyewitnesses are the evidence.
You have not discredited any of their statements.
You have attacked CIT and their conclusions but you have not addressed each witness and explain how they are all wrong."

Umm, Pickering was there with your pals. Correct me if I am wrong, but he clearly states that your guys manipulated your eye witnesses.

Therefore, their testimony regarding the flight path is automatically suspect. The only thing, therefore that is not suspect is the claim that is inconsistent with your position: that the plane hit the Pentagon.

 

[TC329]

The standard here is that there is no evidence of a flyover.

I have a question though.

What do the North of the Citgo witnesses say hit the Pentagon?

A plane.

But let me guess you don't want to believe them when they say it came from the North side of the Citgo, right?

That they are wrong/mistaken/misremembering/lying about, right?

 

[Bobert]

I still haven't figured out what the tiny little remote controlled plane with the 1.2kg payload is supposed to have done that day. Did it shoot down flt 93? did it fake the crash site? Was it there to take pictures of Ms McElwain's van? What???

TC found it on the internet and like everything else that CIT does he will build lies around it.
This is because he like the CIT is a fraud.

 

[TC329]

TC said:

"The North side is the evidence.
The eyewitnesses are the evidence.
You have not discredited any of their statements.
You have attacked CIT and their conclusions but you have not addressed each witness and explain how they are all wrong."

Umm, Pickering was there with your pals. Correct me if I am wrong, but he clearly states that your guys manipulated your eye witnesses.

Therefore, their testimony regarding the flight path is automatically suspect. The only thing, therefore that is not suspect is the claim that is inconsistent with your position: that the plane hit the Pentagon.

Regardless of what Pickering says after his little "hibernation" after the trip what he said that day about the eyewitness accounts proves his later claims were just biased ad homs.

 

[PB&J]

Please don't take the trollbait and sign up over at CIT's site. All they care about is arguing on the internet.

 

[Bobert]

Long Long before Craig took his little field trip back east he believed that 9-11 was inside job.
He then went back east and created a story to fit his beliefs.
This IS NOT what an investigator does.
This is what a snake oil salesmen does.
He is a fraud.

 

[uk_dave]

That they are wrong/mistaken/misremembering/lying about, right?

I hope they're not lying, because if they are then it reflects even worse on you.

The people in the video I posted couldn't pick out an accurate representation of a coin they have come into contact with their entire lives.

The people in the video I posted were (some of them) absolutely certain that they had written down words which had been shown to them for an extended period of time immediately before they were asked to write the words from memory. They were wrong.

You're asking people to remember details of an event which happened five or six years before when the only certain memory they have (and all agree on) is exactly the same as that which is proven by the forensic evidence: THE plane crashed into the pentagon.

Take off the blinkers.

 

[nicepants]

I thought the standard here was a flyover didn't happen because no one witnessed it?

No. A flyover didn't happen because there is ZERO evidence that it happened, and plenty of evidence that the plane hit the pentagon.

But let me guess you don't want to believe them when they say it came from the North side of the Citgo, right?

That they are wrong/mistaken/misremembering/lying about, right?

The evidence suggests that they are simply wrong/mistaken about the location of the plane.

It would not be difficult or unexpected for someone to mis-judge the spatial location of a jet flying 530 mph.

 

[The Big Dog]

Regardless of what Pickering says after his little "hibernation" after the trip what he said that day about the eyewitness accounts proves his later claims were just biased ad homs.

You mean how your witness statements were Irreconcilable? Yeah, I saw that.

I also note that you do not contradict his accusations that your pals were manipulating the witnesses

Anyhow, his later claims were not ad homs. He was there remember? As I recall, you were not.

Wasn't Do Over Dylan there too? He does not think much of your boys, either, now does he?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Is there anyone here not full of ******

The problem here is that you are a VERY bad con artist.

If all the evidence points to Tom shooting someone with his gun but eyewitnesses come forward and say Bill shot the person then tell me (without lying if at all possible) who will the court and more importantly the jury believe?

If all the evidence and 1000s of witnesses point to tom shooting someone with his gun, but 4 people recall someone else doing the shooting, the court is goig to realize that those 4 people are clearly wrong. The court is going to go by the majority of the witnesses and by the DNA, the forensics, the physical evidence, and everything else. If 99% of the evidence supports Tom shooting someone, the court is NOT going to dismiss that 99% of the evidence in favor of the 1% that disagrees.

What you don't understand is that this has nothing to do with lying, but has to do with reliability. The reason you don't understand this is because in your little head the only thing you can accept is that there is a conspiracy and must link only things that will give you that answer. You aren't thinking "Let's find out what really happened", you are thinking "There is a conspiracy, how can we add pieces to back that up".

Please present all the interviews of conflicting eyewitnesses here. I expect them to describe the plane tearing through trees and light poles because it has to on the South side of the Citgo station. Obviously people watching the plane approach and ultimately hit the building would have witnessed these events.

What for the 1000th time? What's the point? So you can continue to post the same 4 witnesses for the 1000th time and pretend everything else doesn't exist because you guys in your cute little youtube video being interviewed makes them more legit? Because I don't go and make a cute little conspiracy video interviewing others that they don't exist? That a plane crashing in front of 1000s of people doesn't exist because I don't play pretend detective like you kids?

Now, I will fulfill YOUR request as soon as you present to me witness interviews of people describing how they saw the light poles being planted and how they saw the plane literally fly over the top of the Pentagon. Also, include people who saw all the derbis and passengers being planted at the scene at the exact moment of impact in front of 1000s of people. I want your witness accounts of the bombs being planted. You know the ones that blasted the generators INWARD towards the hole?

******obviously those who witnessed the plane would have witnessed it flying over******

Or that the evidence that contradicts the eyewitnesses has been manipulated. Oh wait that's not an option in your narrow minded world. No one ever plants or fakes evidence to convict anyone. It has never happened, it will never happen, so there is no precedent for such an outrageous thought.

Yes, please present your proof that the all the rest of the evidence has been manipulated. Please go right ahead and prove that claim of yours. It's not an option in my world because YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN IT!!! On the other hand we have more than proven that people often recall such events wrong.

PROVE YOU DAMN CLAIM YOU CON ARTIST. Thank you.

Sometimes I wish I lived in your little naive worlds with your naive views of humans in general.

You wouldn't know what it would be like to live outside of the delusional world of make believe pretend spy. This is why you little kids just play pretend like this and don't bother taking your pretend evidence to court. Because you know very well you would get laughed out onto the street. You know that even the media won't take your little pretend conspiract seriously because you have no legitimate evidence.


You haven't shown anything. You've argued about whether a flyover happened or not.

The North side is the evidence.
The eyewitnesses are the evidence.
You have not discredited any of their statements.
You have attacked CIT and their conclusions but you have not addressed each witness and explain how they are all wrong.

They all corroborate each other.

And all the rest of the evidence which is far more than simply 4 people and ONLY 4 people's shady recollection ALL CORROBERATE each other. You have not discredited any of that evidence. You have not addressed that the other evidence is all wrong. The rest of the evidence IS the evidence, don't be a complete idiot.

And you are calling them all liars about everything other than the word "impact".

OK idiot, go quote me where I called them liars and paste my quote of calling them liars here. The only liar here is YOU.

I won't. I'll even go as far as to say the plane hit the building but if it did then it hit it from the North side of the Citgo station as described by eyewitness again and again.

So you are claiming that the plane probably hit the building in a way that is impossible for the plane to hit the building. And you wonder why people laugh at these claims?

You can't do that. You say the plane hit the building and the witnesses were either watching a shadow of plane or "misremembering" everything but the impact.

Based on the rest of the evidence which is far greater in amount and reliability than 4 people's recollection. There has never been a major event in history where some people remember incorrectly. Never. It's never ever happened. Yet this time you pretend it has.

This is why places like courts of law and other places where GROWN UPs work don't rely only on the small unreliable contradicting evidence. They look at ALL evidence and determine what happened. This is why the grown ups won't take you guys seriously. Because they are professionals and know what they are doing. They aren't playing make believe like you kids are.

And so all you kids will ever have is your little conspiracy video that no one wants to buy and no one cares about. And all you kids can do is play pretend that you are making a legitimate argument and that everyone else in the world is delusional. Just like you pretend the only 4 people who remember differently than everyone else and the rest of the evidence are the only correct evidence, you also pretend that everyone else in the world is wrong.

As I said, it looks like the wheel on your little red flyer wagon is broken kid.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Are you sure because I thought the standard here was a flyover didn't happen because no one witnessed it?

The standard is that a flyover didn't happen, not because of lack of witnesses, but because of a) lack of evidence that it did, and b) a preponderance of evidence that it didn't.

Besides, two can play that game.

No one has stepped forward to say they witnessed the poles being planted.
No one has stepped forward to say they witnessed the plane parts being planted.
No one has stepped forward to say they witnessed the DNA being faked.
No one has stepped forward to say they witnessed explosives being planted.
No one has stepped forward to say they witnessed a drone plane being remote controlled.

Therefore, none of that happened. See? Not very satisfying, is it?

 

[Calcas]

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?

Oh I see. In your eyes you're now some kind of "big shot" with the 9/11 fantacists, huh?

This is what it really boils down to, doesn't it Dom?

LOOK AT ME..........I'm SOMEBODY!!!

It would be simply pathetic if it didn't involve making up lies and disrespecting the victims of 9/11.

Because it does, it's SICK!

 

[CurtC]

The diagram in this post is about the minimum distance it could have gone north of the Citgo and not right over it. If the plane flew over Ed Paik, that turn would have a radius of about 11000 feet. A plane going 530 mph making a turn with an 11000 foot radius would be required to have a bank angle of 60 degrees. And that's assuming the MINIMUM conditions - directly over Paik and barely north of the Citgo. And it assumes that the plane stayed banked up until the moment it reached the Pentagon, with no time to straighten out and pull up.

Did any of those eyewitnesses recall seeing a nearly-sideways plane fly just overhead? I would think that detail would be way more memorable than which side of the gas station it went on.

 

[TC329]

Oh I see. In your eyes you're now some kind of "big shot" with the 9/11 fantacists, huh?

This is what it really boils down to, doesn't it Dom?

LOOK AT ME..........I'm SOMEBODY!!!

It would be simply pathetic if it didn't involve making up lies and disrespecting the victims of 9/11.

Because it does, it's SICK!

Wrong yet again Calcas. I'm throwing out any bait I can to get Ron to accept the challenge he initally issued.

I am not making up lies nor am I disrespecting the victims of 9/11. All in due time you will be forced to admit your error and your ignorance and that it was I who truly never forgot.

Don't you think documenting eyewitness accounts to one of the most historical events ever and making them all freely available to the American people is something that should have been done by now?

 

[TC329]

You mean how your witness statements were Irreconcilable? Yeah, I saw that.

I also note that you do not contradict his accusations that your pals were manipulating the witnesses

Anyhow, his later claims were not ad homs. He was there remember? As I recall, you were not.

Wasn't Do Over Dylan there too? He does not think much of your boys, either, now does he?

I don't see where Russell accussed CIT of manipulating witnesses. Please present this proof.

This is silly having to address fabricated claims like Pickering claiming people had cameras set up and did not capture a flyover but those videos have never been presented to the public. He sure could have nipped this whole flyover thing that bothers him so greatly in the bud but didn't. Because he can't. Because he is a liar.

Would you let CIT get away with saying we know people who filmed the flyover but they won't release the video because of internet conspriacy theorists so you just have to take our word for it?

Of course you wouldn't.

As for Dylan not thinking much about us as you put it.........

Let's watch LCFC credits, shall we?

Oh look theres my name.
Theres Aldo's.
Theres Craig's.
Oh look theres mine a second time.

Yeah, he definitely doesn't think much about us at all............