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

[bobloblaw]

5. Did Levi contact you and tell you to delete his info from your site?
6. Why did you misrepresent the fact that your ANC witness said the plane was 800 feet away?

#5. He asked them to remove his picture. If you notice on his quotes page, the only actual quote from him is him describing where he was. Go to the CIT forums and check out the thread Open Message to Bitterman in their "debate" section. Aldoh admits it.

I have saved the webpage both before and after it was removed, and I have the emails between myself and Levi.

#6. Yeah, I'm not sure the premise of your question is correct. From memory they were saying the Pentagon was 800 feet away from them, which it more or less is.

 

[Reheat]

Let's move back to this supposed Morin interview again.

As I understand it he is a contractor with the Navy Dept. If that's really him in the photograph carrying "the mysterious tent", he is in civilian clothes indicating that he is indeed not active duty, but a contractor.

Ranke indicates that he is prohibited from giving a formal interview. How so? If he were military, he could easily be discouraged from giving a formal interview, but as a contractor is this really possible? I can assure the military would not have control of that, but could a private company prohibit him from conducting an interview on his own time?

I guess this is a question for the legal types, but anyone with knowledge might take a poke at an answer

 

[bobloblaw]

Let's move back to this supposed Morin interview again.

As I understand it he is a contractor with the Navy Dept. If that's really him in the photograph carrying "the mysterious tent", he is in civilian clothes indicating that he is indeed not active duty, but a contractor.

Ranke indicates that he is prohibited from giving a formal interview. How so? If he were military, he could easily be discouraged from giving a formal interview, but as a contractor is this really possible? I can assure the military would not have control of that, but could a private company prohibit him from conducting an interview on his own time?

I guess this is a question for the legal types, but anyone with knowledge might take a poke at an answer

I work for a prominent US-based multi-national which shouldn't be too different from SPARTA, where Terry Morin is a Deputy Operations Manager.

I am allowed to be interviewed as long as I am not representing the company in any way, or discussing my company's business practises.

I find it strange that Craig has only now come out with a Terry Morin interview, especially right after I mentioned Morin's place of employment on Adam Larson's blog not long before it appeared. That's the "truther" in me jumping to conclusions... it wasn't hard to find Morin so it's most likely a coincidence....

 

[Reheat]

....I am allowed to be interviewed as long as I am not representing the company in any way, or discussing my company's business practises.

This would even be the case if he were active duty military. The issue is not military related. It is a personal matter about his experiences on 9/11 and I can not come up with even one reason why he might be restricted from interviewing about that experience. I think it is twoofer BS.

I find it strange that Craig has only now come out with a Terry Morin interview,

Yes, it is also a strange coincidence that he produced this right after the North of Citgo paper was posted, as well. In fact, this is one of those strange coincidences that would consume multiple pages for days on a twoofer web site accompanied by great hoop la.

 

[bobloblaw]

Look at the way he is twisting the Morin account -> http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=196

Check out the bogus animation that pffffft has produced and then reconcile that with Morin's known testimony.

Craig has also all but admitted that Sean Boger is completely unaware that this is being done in his name. Hopefully I will be speaking to Sean Boger tonight (we wasn't in at work for the day when I called him last night) and I'll be able to confirm that.

Craig also ludicrously states that he asked Terry to put his position on a map and that Terry did so, but asked him not to release it.

How conveniant. But if true, looks like another person that doesn't want to be associated with them.

 

[TC329]

...except for the part where they saw it hit the Pentagon. Right, Craig?

If 12 witnesses all corroborate the plane being on the NoC what does that say about the mechanical damage path?

Let's discuss the flight path pre impact instead of jumping straight into impact/flyover. Up for that Jason?

 

[TC329]

How conveniant. But if true, looks like another person that doesn't want to be associated with them.

WRONG.

It is another person who knows what they saw and now know what was told to the American people and sold as being truth and isn't brave enough to speak publicly about what they saw do to fear of repercussions.

You're a propagandist.

 

[Bobert]

Hi TC,
Are you still a member of CIT?

 

[bobloblaw]

WRONG.

It is another person who knows what they saw and now know what was told to the American people and sold as being truth and isn't brave enough to speak publicly about what they saw do to fear of repercussions.

You're a propagandist.

I recall reading somewhere that you're the guy who thinks 40 foot long poles were hidden in white courier vans, which were then secreted to the scene and quickly dispersed amongst the confusion by secret service agents.

Why don't you tell me all about that.

 

[beachnut]

WRONG.

It is another person who knows what they saw and now know what was told to the American people and sold as being truth and isn't brave enough to speak publicly about what they saw do to fear of repercussions.

You're a propagandist.

You are a fantasy writer and failed investigator. So?

Bring on your evidence. The facts are against you, and all the witnesses presented support 77 hitting the Pentagon. But you are just selling DVDs of false information for 15 bucks. Why waste time spewing lies?

 

[1337m4n]

If 12 witnesses all corroborate the plane being on the NoC what does that say about the mechanical damage path?

If 100 witnesses (including the aforementioned 12) all corroborate the plane striking the Pentagon, what does that say about NoC?

 

[1337m4n]

It is another person who knows what they saw and now know what was told to the American people and sold as being truth and isn't brave enough to speak publicly about what they saw do to fear of repercussions.

Did he say specifically "9/11 was an inside job"? From what I gather, all you asked him about was the flight path.

Why would he fear any "repercussions" about that?

 

[Garb]

I thought witness testimony wasn't supposed to be reliable.

 

[LashL]

If 12 witnesses all corroborate the plane being on the NoC what does that say about the mechanical damage path?

The same thing it has always said: the physical evidence trumps the accounts given by purported witnesses. Especially the accounts given by purported witnesses several years after the fact.

It is another person who knows what they saw and now know what was told to the American people and sold as being truth and isn't brave enough to speak publicly about what they saw do to fear of repercussions.

So, you seek to present this person's account as undeniable evidence in support of your claims while, simultaneously, you seek to present this person's account as hopelessly unreliable.

Do you seriously not see the obvious problem with this?

 

[TC329]

If 12 witnesses all corroborate the plane being on the NoC what does that say about the mechanical damage path?

Let's discuss the flight path pre impact instead of jumping straight into impact/flyover.

No takers on this, huh?

 

[beachnut]

If 12 witnesses all corroborate the plane being on the NoC what does that say about the mechanical damage path?

Let's discuss the flight path pre impact instead of jumping straight into impact/flyover. Up for that Jason?

The witnesses who said 77 hit the Pentagon. Your own witnesses said 77 hits the Pentagon.

Your analysis is flawed, your own witnesses do not support your non paths, or non conclusions. 6 years and all you have is non paths after Balsamo reminded you not to make a conclusion or theory. Are you just a jdx/p4t puppet, or do you make up the false information from scratch?

 

[bobloblaw]

No takers on this, huh?

This has been discussed to death.

All of your witnesses in a position to see an impact reported seeing an impact. Craig even says that one of them had an "incredible vantage point", and also remarks on the Pentagon Smoking Gun video that Brooks has a good view.

Sean Boger describes the plane hitting, fully entering the building, and then exploding!

And these are witnesses that CIT believe support the flyover theory!

That they misremembered the position of the plane in the air is irrelevant - they all give different stories on where they saw it! But they were all fully certain that the plane impacted with the building and there are NO CREDIBLE FLYOVER WITNESSES!

Some of the supposed CIT witnesses cannot even be verified as saying it was NoC (Sean Boger, Levi Stephens), and one of them claims to be an impact witness and the other just had to ask CIT a second time to remove his photo from their work!

And how telling is it that both of these guys were unaware that their photos and statements were both being used to support this ridiculous theory?

 

[TjW]

If 12 witnesses all corroborate the plane being on the NoC what does that say about the mechanical damage path?

Let's discuss the flight path pre impact instead of jumping straight into impact/flyover.

No takers on this, huh?

Apparently not. No one at CIT seems to be capable of committing to a single flight path pre-impact that agrees with all the testimony from their cherry-picked group of witnesses.

The consensus flight path, ending in AA77 hitting the Pentagon, is supported by the vast majority of witnesses and the physical evidence.

If you have a specific flight path in mind that is supported by a majority of witnesses, physical evidence, and the maneuvering capability of an aerodynamically-supported vehicle, simply post it. The math is easily applied and can be reproduced by anyone.

You should bear in mind, though, that the G loading is simply a function of velocity and radius of the turn. The type of vehicle doesn't matter.
The bank angle of an aircraft in a turn is a function of the G loading because the wing has to lift the airplane around the turn.
If your path requires a fast, tight turn at a low angle of bank, it simply isn't possible.

 

[jaydeehess]

No takers on this, huh?

Turcois first points south over the Citgo canopy. Changes his account at the suggestions of Craig. His original account then does not support a NoC

Boger says it was over the annex but from his POV if the plane was on the accepted flightpath along Columbia Pike then the annex was off the port wing and between the plane and Boger. It could easily be mistaken as being over the annex. No NoC.

Paik points along Columbia Pike. No NoC

The ANC witnesses are consistent with the accepted flight path.

There is Lagasse and possibly Brooks' staements about the path but both of them also state unequivocally, that the plane hit the Pentagon. So they are obviously in error in either that or their flight path. Given that every single solitary witness in position to see it states that the plane hit the building, we can safely assume that L and B are correct on that part (preponderance of the evidence). Gven that the accepted flight path fits so many more witness descriptions than these two, and the physical evidence of the downed lamp poles and the path of destruction in the building, the totality of all the on site evidence points to the plane having flown the accepted flight path.

 

[bobloblaw]

I just got off the phone from Sean Boger....

As suspected he had absolutely no idea that CIT were using his name.

Furthermore, he does not even remember being recorded by these guys. He said to me that he remembers being contacted and asked a few questions, and that whoever it was told him they would call him back but never did.

Sean gave me his email address and I will be sending him links of what CIT have been saying about him.

Stay tuned for more..

Unfortunately I have not heard anything further from Levi Stephens at this point. He seems to not want to discuss this at all.