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

[gc051360]

The problem for you is while you can summarily dismiss an eyewitness you cannot dismiss seven eyewitnesses corroborating the same claim.

Let me remind everyone here that one of JREF's favorite argument for the Pentagon attack is "people saw the plane hit".

If you would like to have a thread which debates the actual subject and includes not 1 single eyewitness account of what took place there I'm more than open to it but that definitely won't work well in your favor.

Well then. Let's dismiss all of the eye witness testimony then, shall we?

What are we left with? We are left with a pretty good amount of physical evidence that a plane went down. We are left with the testimony of the airlines themselves who keep track of the plane. And we are left with a plane that once existed (we do agree it existed right?) That has not been seen since. Count the crew and passengers among those missing as well.

I'd say there is quite a strong case for the plane hitting, minus the eye witness testimony.

Your turn.

 

[nicepants]

If they are right about the impact then they are right about the flight path, either way you still FAIL.

Do you get it yet?

Their claims of impact are validated by the physical evidence at the pentagon. Their claims of seeing the plane north of the citgo are validated by....nothing. (And for some reason you choose to only believe the claim that isn't validated by the physical evidence)

Do you get it yet?

 

[The Big Dog]

If they are right about the impact then they are right about the flight path, either way you still FAIL.

Do you get it yet?

Oh my. You really don't understand do you?

You see, you are the proponent of this theory. You and your pals claim that this testimony and only this testimony supports your "fly over" theory. Using only YOUR evidence, a reasonable person would point out that your own evidence directly contradicts, in fact destroys your theory.

I realize that you are being juvenile by saying "I fail" but I have nothing to prove, other than to perhaps keep pointing out that your own witnesses destroy your theory.

I will point out, of course, that you are completely misrepresenting Lyte's and Also' position in all of this. They refuse to acknowledge the impact testimony (perhaps they were so busy misleading their witnesses, they missed it)

So applying their position to your statement, results in:

If they are right about the impact then they are right about the flight path.

Aldo and the boys say they are wrong about the impact, so.... they are wrong about the flight path.

Well done, you debunked CIT!

But I guess that is between you CIT'ers.

Gonna be awful uncomfortable in the CIT Fort made out of cushions tonight!

 

[CHF]

I can't believe there are actually people in this world dumb enough to use witness testimony to prove a "flyover" when those same witnesses saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

I mean really....it boggles the mind.

 

[Bobert]

Yes but it was pointed out to my attention that we can't rely on eyewitnesses even when they corroborate each other.

I was told that we then have to lean towards the evidence which I am told proves AA77 impacted the Pentagon. So I asked for a thread to debate this topic without ever using any account from an eyewitness since they are all so unreliable.

Seems odd to me but I learn new things here all the time.



Dom

Dom,
Dio you think that when you reply like this that people take you seriously?
Imagine in the real world WITH REAL REPORTERS and REAL AUTHORITIES would you do this?
That type of a reponse continues to eat away at whatever credibility you have which frankly is hardly anything to begin with.
Well on second thought keep up those responses its probably too late for you anyway.

 

[Bobert]

Well then. Let's dismiss all of the eye witness testimony then, shall we?

What are we left with? We are left with a pretty good amount of physical evidence that a plane went down. We are left with the testimony of the airlines themselves who keep track of the plane. And we are left with a plane that once existed (we do agree it existed right?) That has not been seen since. Count the crew and passengers among those missing as well.

I'd say there is quite a strong case for the plane hitting, minus the eye witness testimony.

Your turn.

AND all that gosh darn DNA which the CIT will overlook by calling it PLANTED.

 

[bonavada]

Well then. Let's dismiss all of the eye witness testimony then, shall we?

What are we left with? We are left with a pretty good amount of physical evidence that a plane went down. We are left with the testimony of the airlines themselves who keep track of the plane. And we are left with a plane that once existed (we do agree it existed right?) That has not been seen since. Count the crew and passengers among those missing as well.

I'd say there is quite a strong case for the plane hitting, minus the eye witness testimony.

Your turn.

Of course. In my opinion also the evidence (sans eyewitness accounts) that the flight hit the Pentagon that morning is absolutely irrefutable.

As stated in the New York Times article I pasted above..........

Benjamin A. Berman NTSB[/color]]"....eyewitness testimony at a plane crash and probably at many traumatic events is unreliable"

If we ignore ALL eyewitness testimony of the crash then the CIT Pentacon case is doomed.

BV

 

[TC329]

round, and round we go............

The one interesting thing in this thread was TC saying that he might accept that the plane hit the Pentagon.

I stated for argument sake I conceded impact, not that I believe it. I just want to take the discussion off of "flyover". When you guys can't attack the flyover your ammo gets really really low.

The CIT aside, I have to wonder then, are we here all in agreement then that the plane hit the Pentagon?

TC?

NO.

If a plane hit the Pentagon then it solves the problem of the aircraft parts and the human remains.

Human remains are explained by the HUMAN OCCUPANTS INSIDE THE PENTAGON. Whoa, bet you never considered that before, huh?

It solves the problem of how a bloody large portion of the ground level wall went missing and the 20 foot diamter hole in the second floor wall.

Where did the tail hit? Or is this the claim that requires engines tearing though the foundation which we all know didn't take place..........?

All that is left then is TC and CIT's claim that this plane came in on a flight path that put it to the north of the Citgo station.

That actually would be the claims from Sgt LaGasse, Sgt Brooks, Robert Turcios, Sean Boger, Levi Stephens. Don't forget Ed Paik. The mechanical damage requires the plane to remain on the South side of Columbia Pike at all times which Paik clearly disputes.

So I would suggest you contact these individuals and ask them to provide the math to prove they are not liars which is what you all seem to think they are.

It also requires an explanation for the downed lamp poles.

Not our job.

Finally it must require that any statements that put the plane south of the Cigo station be thrown out.

Please list all the "South" side of the Citgo witnesses now for references sake.

The CIT and TC ignore bank angle and g forces on the aircraft.

How fast was this plane traveling and how did we determine that?
What type of plane are we discussing?
And please provide proof of said plane.

The CIT and TC must postulate covert subterfuges that toppled poles or removed poles and planted broken ones at the time that the plane went by.

No we don't.

The CIT and TC claim over and over that 7 witnesses cannot all be wrong but do not reconcile the fact that they are now stating that all those who say the plane was to the south are wrong.

List of names ...................?????

To this end the again invoke a subterfuge that allows them to disregard many of these witnesses by claiming that they are not misremembering but rather that they are lieing.

WHO THE **** ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??????

The fact is that the claims of subterfuge are made up entirely by the CIT.

Are you saying the witnesses are holographic visions of CIT's imagination?

They are fictions born in the minds of the CIT.

Yes, you are! HOLY ******!!! I bet theres some people in jail that don't believe Sgts LaGasse & Brooks aren't holograms!!! Hopefully they're not there based on anything those 2 police Sgts witnessed, right?

 

[Bobert]

Dom,
How do you explain the DNA of the passengers being found at tha Pentagon?
PLANTED?
That is what Craig believes but of course that was after he believed that they were gassed which was after he believed they were flown to Ohio and executed by the government.

 

[Bobert]

By the way TC you are like the deck hand trying to be captain.
I would rather see Craig and Aldo here debating this.
But of course as with most debates they are cowards so I do give you that credit.

 

[nicepants]

Human remains are explained by the HUMAN OCCUPANTS INSIDE THE PENTAGON. Whoa, bet you never considered that before, huh?

That doesn't explain the human remains of the passengers/crew of AA77 which were also recovered from inside the Pentagon.

If you are insisting that the plane didn't impact the Pentagon, how could their remains have ended up there?

 

[DavidJames]

In the new Loose Change forum, Aldo Marquis states that CIT are taking their "Pentacon evidence" through legal channels.

here

Maybe I missed it, but all he says

Yes and we will continue to put pressure on them as we continue our investigation.

When pushed he evades the question. Why? Because he knows it can be verified. To the best of my knowledge no one from CIT has every stated to whom they have presented their "evidence".

 

[The Big Dog]

TC: "I just want to take the discussion off of "flyover". When you guys can't attack the flyover your ammo gets really really low."

BWHAHAHAHA!!!! AWESOME! So when we attack the flyover our ammunition is really, really high, I guess?

Poor Lyte and Aldo, probably sitting there saying "SHUT UUuuPPPP!! TC"

 

[A W Smith]

The mechanical damage requires the plane to remain on the South side of Columbia Pike at all times which Paik clearly disputes

That would be incorrect

 

[Bobert]

Maybe I missed it, but all he says

Yes and we will continue to put pressure on them as we continue our investigation.[/

. When pushed he evades the question. Why? Because he knows it can be verified. To the best of my knowledge no one from CIT has every stated to whom they have presented their "evidence".

Craig stated many times that as a reult of their investigation trials would begin.
It seems that first Aldo agrees with Craig

I'll tell you why you might think our evidence is worth taking to court. Because it is.

ALRIGHT ALDO AND CRAIG!!!!
COURT CASES WILL BEGIN!!!
Oh but alas a few sentences later our trusty Barney Fife backs down:

We aren't taking this to a court or a lawyer's office. This isn't TV, Sap.

No Aldo you are right this isnt TV this is REAL LIFE with REAL PEOPLE being murdered on Sept 11th. Please crawl back under that rock from which you slithered.

BTW what is the deal with SPreston?
Is this dude on crack?
Does he live in a bunker somewhere with stockpiles of weapons?

 

[CHF]

I wish the CIT crew would go to the media with their evidence, I really do.

Imagine how that investigation would go...

Reporter: "So what happened then?"

Witness: "The plane slammed into the Pentagon."

Reporter: "So why did the CIT team tell me it flew over the Pentagon?"

Witness: "No idea."

 

[Bobert]

I wonder if anyone on JREF has a way to contact the CIT witnesses?
It would be great to get an unbiased comment from them on how they view being portrayed in the CIT video.
My SIL is an AP reporter but I dont know how much help she could be with this.

 

[pomeroo]

That was Rob's last exchange with Ron. Ron never returned to ATS to reply. We are still waiting for Ron to submit a quoted claim from our site, properly sourced, in which he would like to debate.

Ron continues to go around shouting "The bogus pilots refuse to debate!", when Ron hasnt made it clear exactly what he would like to debate and when asked, he runs away. I guess he just likes to argue for the sake of hearing himself shout pointless drivel.

Ron, keep making claims of "Bogus pilots".. It only hurts you, especially since your behavior is very different on the phone. Why do you suddenly become so brave from behind your screen on a forum in which you know your opposition has been banned? I think i know why.

I think it maybe about time someone gives your phone a ring......

When Balsamo lied outright about informing me at the start of the call that he was taping me, I understood that I was dealing with people who have no integrity. The "pilots" are bogus because they can't be found. I know --I've tried. I am opposed to banning anyone who doesn't threaten physical violence. By my standards, Ranke, Marquis, and Rob Balsamo are perfectly welcome to post here, but I don't make the rules.

You want a debate topic? Fine, try this one: The bogus pilots pretend, by dismissing the physical evidence, that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. Why do they refuse Mackey's challenge to submit a plausible flight path? Why do they refuse to correct their math errors? Why do they refuse to resolve the mutually-exclusive claims made by their tiny handful of cherry-picked witnesses? Why do they ignore the much larger number of witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon and who do not describe an impossible flight path?

All of you frauds make the same mistake. You think you're doing me a favor by trotting out your ridiculous, preposterous fantasies for Mark to destroy. You seem oblivious to the fact that you've accomplished absolutely nothing by confining yourselves to internet sites frequented by very few people. You claim to have uncovered the most sensational story in the history of journalism, but you can't take it to a real news outlet. Ranke claimed, ludicrously, that they're all in on it. If so, why don't you simply quit? If I knew something important that nothing else knew, and I could prove it, I'd demand that people pay attention. Your behavior, hiding in the shadows and running away from your critics, gives away your game. You know that you've got nothing. If you thought otherwise, you wouldn't act as you do.

 

[T.A.M.]

the problem with quoting his lame crap is that it bypasses my "ignore" function.

I see very little from TC has changed. Well that is not true, as he has become more obnoxious. Nice touch with the indirect, subtle harrassment threat at the end...very responsible and mature.

TAM

 

[TC329]

That doesn't explain the human remains of the passengers/crew of AA77 which were also recovered from inside the Pentagon.

If you are insisting that the plane didn't impact the Pentagon, how could their remains have ended up there?

Please provide indisputable proof of AA77 passengers/crew remains inside the Pentagon. Please don't post pictures of victims that died at their desk from the bomb and claim their chairs are airplane seats.

"The government says so" isn't acceptable enough to me.

I don't believe their remains were recovered.