Challenge to CIT

[uk_dave]

Is that it?

That certainly is a very sad thread over there.

It now appears that the 'North of Citgo' and 'too many gs' claims are unimportant to the true believers. The only thing that matters is that a handful of witnesses recall (from 6 years previous and which took a matter of second to occur) that the plane flew over the Navy Annex.

That's it. The official story can't be true because the official story doesn't have the plane over the annex. That's about the extent of their claim.

They can't prove that the plane flew north of Citgo or even that it was possible for it to do so.

They can't prove that the plane couldn't have levelled off prior to hitting the pentagon.

But they do have a few witnesses who believe that they saw that this very fast, very large aircraft fly above the Navy Annex.

Not much to base a career on.

I wonder if it might be more humane to ignore the CIT from now on. I suspect (judging from the vitriol in their posts) that some CIT members are heading for nervous exhaustion if not total breakdown.

 

[GlennB]

...
I wonder if it might be more humane to ignore the CIT from now on. I suspect (judging from the vitriol in their posts) that some CIT members are heading for nervous exhaustion if not total breakdown.

My thoughts entirely. Some of the 'logic' they're presenting over there is a little disturbing.

 

[funk de fino]

That SPreston moron is completely off his rocker. He knows nothing about aircraft or their capabilities.

CIT are finished they are reduced to debunking the information from their own witness, yet fail to see it and think they are debunking JREFers.

How much anti-logic can you have in one thread?

 

[Reheat]

I wonder if it might be more humane to ignore the CIT from now on. I suspect (judging from the vitriol in their posts) that some CIT members are heading for nervous exhaustion if not total breakdown.

I'm beginning to contemplate the same thing. I could care less about being humane, but I'm wondering if it's not better to just ignore them and allow the self destruct to proceed.

It's mostly just babble now as everyone is observing. A few more days of ridicule just might be enough.....

 

[Reheat]

Balsamo's LYING

It has come to my attention that Balsamo is touting that I/we said a North of Citgo flight path was aerodynamically IMPOSSIBLE. Ranke has also been saying the same thing, but I ignored him as he is ignorant. There is no excuse for Balsamo to be ignorant about this. There is no way that he could be making an innocent mistake. Therefore, there is only one conclusion a reasonable person could reach.

HE IS LYING.

Perhaps there is a quote somewhere in this long thread that can be taken out of context, but the STATEMENTS and the THEME all along to include NOW, are that it was/is aerodynamically impossible to fly on a flight path North of the Citgo station while adhering to the the witnesses statements.

His purpose is obvious. It is very embarrassing to him that he allowed CIT to continue their tripe for over a year to include bragging about the high speed to fool onlookers into not noticing a flyover of the Pentagon. He never bothered to check or notice the extreme maneuvering that would be necessary for this fantasy to be real. He is now trying to recover for the mindless minions who follow his failed guidance.

Just as the US Government was caught with it's "pants down" on 9/11, Balsamo has now been caught with his pants down.

So, stay in your little failed closed loop at pffft, Robbie and only the mindless minions there might possibly be fooled by your blatant lie. You have accused me of being a coward and now I'm accusing you of being the obvious coward that you are PROVING TO BE. You are not only a coward, but you are a fraud, a charlatan, and a failure at more than just a flying career.

Got a job, yet?

 

[bonavada]

Original graphic and derivation is here. I created that for them about a month ago, did all the math, and even produced graphics for them. And yet they still find a way to screw it up.

What remarkable diligence there.

CIT remind me of a small herd of rabid rhinos thrashing about in the African thorn-bush. Thick-skinned and pissing on every branch as if it were their own, impervious to the multiple thorns, half-blind and dependent on the olfactory sense and instinct not realising it's their own trampled **** they are smelling for all this time.

BV

BTW how do I post indices as mr mackey does in his paper? (eg instead of s^-1)

 

[grmcdorman]

BTW how do I post indices as mr mackey does in his paper? (eg instead of s^-1)

Like this:

s[sup]-1[/sup]
​

which produces:

s^-1​

There's a similar code for subscript ([sub], of course).

 

[bonavada]

Like this:

s[sup]-1[/sup]
​

which produces:

s^-1​

There's a similar code for subscript ([sub], of course).

Hey thanks.

BV

 

[bonavada]

Just teaching myself Corel Photopaint :-]

BV

 

[1337m4n]

I salute you Reheat.

I posted one thread against CIT and called it quits.

You on the other hand are going all the way. Never resting until CIT's argument is nothing but a smoldering rubble pile.

I envy your persistence. I don't have the patience for them. And on top of that, Aldo just plain scares me.

 

[jaydeehess]

I've toyed with the idea of rejoining LCF since I have a new ISP and thus a new IP address. However, I can barely find time to post here, have given up, mostly, on physorg, The Blackvault and Apollohoax simply because there is not enough time. I am on other forums on topics that just never include 9/11 or CT's of any kind, and they are more important to me, and my time.

The only reason to battle it out with the likes of the CIT is that to not dos o will simply allow them to propigate their nonsense. Yes we can debunk it thoroughly today and leave, but in a couple of months they'd be at it again and new people would read their carp and be roped in and not see the debunking in , by then, threads that are pusshed many pages back.

It is for this reason that pft also just allows their bad math to remain visible. Only people with a background in applied math and physics will see that they balls'd it up. The rest will simply be impressed by the page and only a few will even check the arithmetic.

 

[Bobert]

I salute you Reheat.

I posted one thread against CIT and called it quits.

You on the other hand are going all the way. Never resting until CIT's argument is nothing but a smoldering rubble pile.

I envy your persistence. I don't have the patience for them. And on top of that, Aldo just plain scares me.

Aldo is a complete coward.
He photoshopped a pic of me and when I called him to confront him he wouldnt take the call.
He is total scum.
This is the latest vile oozing out of his pie hole

Did the human remains of the passenger & crew witness the plane on the south side?

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=63909&t=214463
How completely vile and disgusting to say that.
He has zero shame.
It is awesome that sooo many boards are banning him.

 

[jhunter1163]

That image they got from the German guy is hilarious. A "100 m" antenna that is drawn about half a mile high. I'm banned there or I'd post it here. Oh, wait, if I'm banned I shouldn't even know about it... *facepalm*

 

[nicepants]

Aldo & Dom continuing to spew this line:

They are correct, because they've been corroborated and continued to be corroborated

Only in CIT-world are eyewitnesses correct simply because they agree. (Yet somehow it doesn't apply to everything they agree on....impact, for example)

 

[The Big Dog]

WAldo is . . . completely vile and disgusting to say that.
He has zero shame.
It is awesome that sooo many boards are banning him.

Not necessarily, I mean how would anyone one know the depths of his ignorance without posts like this one:

"Did the human remains of the passenger & crew witness the plane on the south side?

Did you verify the DNA first hand? Did you verify the chain of custody?"

Did we verify the DNA first hand? Did the human remains witness the flight path??

What an imbecile. Seriously, stick a fork in the CIT, they are a complete joke.

 

[uruk]

Yea. Attention to CIT really is begining to dry up. Craig is even noticing the lack of interest.

Just for the hell of it, I posted over there just to see what was going on and make afew observations. If it wasn't for a few other posters there it would be just mainly the choir posting in.

Some seem to actualy be interested in debate but some just mearly indulge in sophistry and regurgitation.

It doesn't really seem to me that the CIT will ever come around to doing the math. They seem content on relying on Balsamo's admittedly erroneous calculations.

CIT also doesn't seem capable of admitting or realizing that physical evidence is, at the very least, as important as wittness testimony. I really don't see how wittness testimony can even be considered scientific. How can you test or verify wittness testimony unless there is physical evidence to support the testimony. Corroberating testimony only means that some people are agreeing on what they saw which can depend on alot of things other than what they actually saw. Perspective and group psychology are just a couple of issues to mention.

I mean, it is commendable that they actually went out there and looked for wittnesses. But in the end that all they have. Someone's recollection of events. And they ignore quite abit of that recollection at that.

And it is a little dishonest to be using the "government planted, faked, lies. etc. conard all the time.

It's a busy time for instructors with the end of the semester coming up but I hope to address some of the longer postes over there. Especially the wittness list. There are some very vivid accounts of the plane hitting the building that Craig seem all too willing to ignore considering the amount of wieght he gives wittness accounts.

You can add that to list of CIT's dishonest practices. They give so much gravitas to wittness accounts except where it disagrees with thier pet theory.

But then you guys already know all this.

 

[TC329]

Aldo & Dom continuing to spew this line:


Only in CIT-world are eyewitnesses correct simply because they agree. (Yet somehow it doesn't apply to everything they agree on....impact, for example)

Hi Jason!

Hope all is well. I was curious.....do you believe anyone ever planted evidence at a crime scene in order to implicate someone else?

 

[TC329]

Yea. Attention to CIT really is begining to dry up. Craig is even noticing the lack of interest.

Just for the hell of it, I posted over there just to see what was going on and make afew observations. If it wasn't for a few other posters there it would be just mainly the choir posting in.

Some seem to actualy be interested in debate but some just mearly indulge in sophistry and regurgitation.

It doesn't really seem to me that the CIT will ever come around to doing the math. They seem content on relying on Balsamo's admittedly erroneous calculations.

CIT also doesn't seem capable of admitting or realizing that physical evidence is, at the very least, as important as wittness testimony. I really don't see how wittness testimony can even be considered scientific. How can you test or verify wittness testimony unless there is physical evidence to support the testimony. Corroberating testimony only means that some people are agreeing on what they saw which can depend on alot of things other than what they actually saw. Perspective and group psychology are just a couple of issues to mention.

I mean, it is commendable that they actually went out there and looked for wittnesses. But in the end that all they have. Someone's recollection of events. And they ignore quite abit of that recollection at that.

And it is a little dishonest to be using the "government planted, faked, lies. etc. conard all the time.

It's a busy time for instructors with the end of the semester coming up but I hope to address some of the longer postes over there. Especially the wittness list. There are some very vivid accounts of the plane hitting the building that Craig seem all too willing to ignore considering the amount of wieght he gives wittness accounts.

You can add that to list of CIT's dishonest practices. They give so much gravitas to wittness accounts except where it disagrees with thier pet theory.

But then you guys already know all this.

If the "wittnesses" are all lying/incorrect then why doesn't the US government release the 85+ videos they confiscated which would clearly clarify the plane's flight path?

Take your time and think before answering.

 

[Par]

I was curious.....do you believe anyone ever planted evidence at a crime scene in order to implicate someone else?

It looks like you’re trying to change the subject! (If you wish to claim that evidence was planted, then by all means present you evidence for the same.)

 

[Bobert]

Hi Jason!

Hope all is well. I was curious.....do you believe anyone ever planted evidence at a crime scene in order to implicate someone else?

Seriously bro are you like 13 years old?
Why do you keep calling him by "Jason"?
Do you feel all big and tough by googling peole and finding out their first name?
Do you think that anyone really cares?
Maybe I should get into contact with Susan McElwain and see if she knows what you are doing with her good name.