• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

TC329 said:
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?
Click to expand...


Here's the problem, CIT has no interest in honestly documenting people accounts of a historic event. You are more interested in cherry picking information to fit your little conspiracy theory. When it does not fit or when people point out the numerous flaws in your "investigation" you start making accusations of "disinfo", call people names etc, etc. Let's face it; admitting the truth is not good for DVD sales now is it?
 
Dom, how many Meters north of the Citgo was the flight path? Paik puts the path over Columbia pike in front of his shop in the latest Lyte Trip video. And we all know where the impact hole is.
 
pomeroo said:
I am met with silence whenever I propose that one or more of the Penta-conmen accompany me and another rationalist to interview the cherry-picked witnesses who allegedly describe an impossible flight path. Why the reluctance? We will simply ask them to reconcile their version of events with physical realities. Either they will stick with their memory of observing the plane (incidentally, what plane?) north of the Citgo Station and thereby abandon the idea that it hit the Pentagon, or they will...well, you get the idea.

So, how about it? When can we arrange our day-trip to Washington, D.C.?
Click to expand...

Pick a weekend. I accept.

Contact the witnesses.

Then on top of that we'll each try to locate 3 more witnesses. We can even use one exclusively from mainstream media sources if you like.
We can name them publicly before we go and post those interviews afterwards as well.

Sound good to you?

Now explain why you need someone from CIT to hold your hand while you do this.

Oh yeah, and when it's done I hope you'll use your BBC contacts to explain the accusations I am making against their hitpiece and perhaps ask them if a representative can comment on my claims about Mrs. McElwain & Ms. Weyant and call for them to release their interviews with these witnesses uncut.
 
aaaaah pooooor pooooor widdle kweggy weggy and Aldoooooo Waldo.
They are soooo such the poor starving attention seeking whores that they have to cweate a cuuuute widdle "open letter" to AGAIN get more wattention to their widdle forum NO ONE visits.

istockphoto_1795210_cry_baby.jpg


Geez even a 2 year can spot these clowns as frauds
 
Last edited:
Bobert said:
aaaaah pooooor pooooor widdle kweggy weggy and Aldoooooo Waldo.
They are soooo such the poor starving attention seeking whores that they have to cweate a cuuuute widdle "open letter" to AGAIN get more wattention to their widdle forum NO ONE visits.

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1795210/2/istockphoto_1795210_cry_baby.jpg

Geez even a 2 year can spot these clowns as frauds
Click to expand...

Says the guy who was outted as a racist yesterday that stalks Craig over the internet and is so obsessed with Craig that it cost you your job. Even the members of this forum ignore you.

I'm glad you're not my co-worker, that's all I got to say to you.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
LC:

"Let's watch LCFC credits, shall we?" Giggle! Somebody should watch them, at least once, given the fact that turd dropped like a rock never to be seen again.

Anyhow, here is what Aldo said about LCFC:

"You screwed everybody. You didn't do your homework. You made a movie that got heavily debunked and yet you CONTINUED TO SELL IT!!!!! You should be ashamed of yourself. Now you are releasing watered down version which now makes you and everybody who supported you look like fools."

Oh but he got mentioned in the Credits, now did he?

Do Over said:

"To you guys, everyone is an agent, and everything is planted. Add to that your tirades on this website and others, and you wonder why nobody takes you seriously."

TC, a small piece of advice, stop pretending that the rest of the Truthers don't think you guys are a joke. I've got about 50 more quotes from Truthers just like these.

Anyhow, in response to Lyte and Aldo's open letter tell them that 16.5 says "Thanks but No Thanks."
 
Last edited:
TC329 said:
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?
Click to expand...

No. I don't care what they saw, or think they saw,...I don't care. I have enough evidence to conclude a plane hit the pentagon. I'm more willing to dismiss an eye witness account of a quick, shocking event, than the physical evidence.

you, however, rely on their account to PROVE the placement of the plane, and then you dismiss their conclusions about what hit the building.

eta: Do all of these "Citgo North" witnesses, propose the same flight path?
 
Last edited:
TC329 said:
Says the guy who was outted as a racist yesterday that stalks Craig over the internet and is so obsessed with Craig that it cost you your job. Even the members of this forum ignore you.

I'm glad you're not my co-worker, that's all I got to say to you.
Click to expand...


LOL I am racist please do tell!
But then again you lie so much how can anyone believe you BUT I am sure you will post proof of my evil racist ways.
I do appreciate that you think that I am sooooo important worthy of "outting" but my eog is fine thanks.
As for the Craig and working with him no one cares that you fixate on this.
I mean you can bring it up until the cows come home but I would rather live with that then the fact that I am pathetic fraud.
Oh ya and also TC I am not fixated with JREF like you are.
I dont get validation in life from either being paid attention to or ignored by the JREF community.
I dont actually think that you and I could be co-workers BUT I will visit you at the drive thru and allow you to take my order.
 
Last edited:
TC you can continue to bring up your lies about my work relationship with Craig but understand that evertime you do it prompts another 10 or so people to PM me for details.
I am sure Craig would rather you not do that but its your choice.
 
So once again, these three stooges are simply using the most few bits of unreliable evidence to dismiss the more plentiful and reliable evidence.
 
TC329 said:
Pick a weekend. I accept.

Contact the witnesses.

Then on top of that we'll each try to locate 3 more witnesses. We can even use one exclusively from mainstream media sources if you like.
We can name them publicly before we go and post those interviews afterwards as well.

Sound good to you?

Now explain why you need someone from CIT to hold your hand while you do this.
Click to expand...


I want a conspiracy liar present when I ask my questions to avoid your evil movement's typical tricks. I can interview your cherry-picked witnesses and we all know that they will continue to insist that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. The plane did hit the Pentagon, which accounts for the presence of the remains of the passengers and crew, a small detail the Penta-conmen like to ignore. But, you frauds will quickly conjure up a flimsy alibi. I want one of you clowns on video when your scam is blown to hell.


TC329 said:
Oh yeah, and when it's done I hope you'll use your BBC contacts to explain the accusations I am making against their hitpiece and perhaps ask them if a representative can comment on my claims about Mrs. McElwain & Ms. Weyant and call for them to release their interviews with these witnesses uncut.
Click to expand...


I don't have a relationship with the BBC. I think you should contact the network and explain your belief that a far-left, virulently anti-Bush news outlet is engaged in producing "hit pieces" to discredit the dumbest, most dishonest pack of hyenas ever to creep out of the brush and feast on the corpses of murder victims.
 
Last edited:
LMAO.....
TC,
Thanks for that PM explaning that by referring to Aldo as a "DJ" that I am being racist.
A DJ spins records and plays music.
I didnt mean to be so racist.
I will endeavor in the future not to be a racist towards DJ's.
I am sooo very sorry for being racist.
Aldo is a DJ though and I am sure that many people are happy to see him on the 1's and 2's.
 
TC, the biggest problem you will always have with flight 77 is that there's no evidence of this plane to be found anywhere else, except at the Pentagon. There is no evidence of it's passengers to be found anywhere else, except at the Pentagon.

Unless.............You have discovered irrefutable evidence flight 77 and it's passengers are somewhere else, other than the Pentagon. You appear to be convinced flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon. So, where is it? Did it fly into the Bermuda Triangle?
 
Last edited:
I would like to ask TC if he would please take a minute or two and read the article quoted below. I think it is worth quoting in full and I've highlighted a few particularly significant areas.

TC, do the conclusions drawn in the story have any impact on the premise which the whole Pentacon is founded?
I mean, if ALL eyewitness testimony from that day was discounted then what would CIT have left?

Ideas & Trends; For Air Crash Detectives, Seeing Isn't Believing
By MATTHEW L. WALD
Published: New York Times: June 23, 2002

HUNDREDS of people watched the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 near Kennedy International Airport in New York on Nov. 12, and in the course of 93 seconds they apparently saw hundreds of different things.
According to the National Transportation Safety Board, which announced this month that it had gathered 349 eyewitness accounts through interviews or written statements, 52 percent said they saw a fire while the plane was in the air. The largest number (22 percent) said the fire was in the fuselage, but a majority cited other locations, including the left engine, the right engine, the left wing, the right wing or an unspecified engine or wing.
Nearly one of five witnesses said they saw the plane make a right turn; an equal number said it was a left turn. Nearly 60 percent said they saw something fall off the plane; of these, 13 percent said it was a wing. (In fact, it was the vertical portion of the tail.)
The investigators say there is no evidence in the wreckage or on the flight recorders of an in-flight fire or explosion. A plane breaking up in flight, as this one did, might in its last moments produce flashes of fire from engines ripping loose, but the idea that the plane caught fire is a trick of memory, they say.
None of this is surprising, said Dr. Charles R. Honts, a professor of psychology at Boise State University and the editor of the Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology. ''Eyewitness memory is reconstructive,'' said Dr. Honts, who is not associated with the safety board. ''The biggest mistake you can make is to think about a memory like it's a videotape; there's not a permanent record there.''
The problem, he said, is that witnesses instinctively try to match events with their past experiences: ''How many plane crashes have you witnessed in real life? Probably none. But in the movies? A lot. In the movies, there's always smoke and there's always fire.''
As a result, the safety board generally doesn't place much value on eyewitness reports if data and voice recorders are available. For many investigators, the only infallible witness is a twisted piece of metal.
Benjamin A. Berman, a former chief of major aviation investigations at the safety board, said pilots actually make the worst witnesses, because their technical knowledge can lead them too quickly to identify a mechanical problem that may not have occurred. ''Children make among the best witnesses,'' he added, ''because they don't tend to place an interpretation on what they've seen.''
The safety board's skepticism of eyewitness accounts was deepened by the explosion of TWA Flight 800 off Long Island six years ago: hundreds of people saw an upward streak that they assumed was a missile, although investigators said it was the body of the plane itself, streaking upward after the forward portion had fallen off following a fuel tank explosion.
THAT disaster highlighted another pitfall for investigators, Mr. Berman and others say: F.B.I. agents asked witnesses where the missile came from, presupposing the presence of a weapon. ''It wasn't good aircraft accident investigation,'' Mr. Berman said.
There are other well-known cases of witness error, including the crash of a Lauda Air Boeing 767 near Bangkok in May 1991. Witnesses said they heard a bomb and saw the plane fall in flames, but it turned out to be a mechanical problem.
So why do investigators bother asking witnesses at all? Dr. Bernard S. Loeb, who retired as the safety board's director of aviation safety last year, said, ''In the case of 587, it's unlikely that the witnesses will provide much to help the investigation, but you never know that when you begin an investigation -- where you're going to get important leads, from the recorders, from witnesses, from the structure itself.''
And in any crash, he said, conflicting witness statements can still be useful. ''What was very clear from the Flight 800 witnesses was that many did see something up in the sky,'' he said.
Even if the accounts are likely to be wrong, they are still routinely gathered and evaluated by both the board and police agencies. ''Can you imagine if we didn't interview the witnesses?'' said one current board official.
Mr. Berman, who left the board last year, said investigators may have released the summary of what the Flight 587 witnesses saw just to show publicly that the statements showed ''scatter'' -- an engineering term for plotted data that does not fit a pattern. A release at this late date is unusual, but a spokesman for the board, Ted Lopatkiewicz, said it was done because it was ready. But, he added, ''I don't think I'm making any news by saying that eyewitness testimony at a plane crash and probably at many traumatic events is unreliable.''
Witness statements can be more valuable in crashes of small planes that don't have flight data recorders or cockpit voice recorders, Mr. Berman said.
Mr. Loeb said his experience with witnesses had led him to question the reliability of criminal convictions based on eyewitness identifications. In Illinois, he noted, a commission appointed by the governor recommended in April that the death penalty not be applied to murder convictions based on a single eyewitness identification.
Mr. Loeb said his personal experience also played into his skepticism. Recently he and his wife saw a two-vehicle collision, and unlike plane crash witnesses, they both saw it from the same angle. Within moments, they disagreed about what they had seen. Among other key details, Mr. Loeb said he could not recall whether one of the vehicles had been a truck or an S.U.V.
Click to expand...

BV
 
bonavada said:
I would like to ask TC if he would please take a minute or two and read the article quoted below. I think it is worth quoting in full and I've highlighted a few particularly significant areas.

TC, do the conclusions drawn in the story have any impact on the premise which the whole Pentacon is founded?
I mean, if ALL eyewitness testimony from that day was discounted then what would CIT have left?



BV
Click to expand...

They're in on it, too!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom