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

[Alt+F4]

Average American citizens who were witnesses to the horrors of 9/11 are not like UFO fanatics.

Agreed. By the way, have you read Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11 by Patrick Creed and Rick Newman?

The authors interviewed over 150 people who lived through the horrors of that day and it's aftermath. All agree a large commercial airplane hit the Pentagon.

 

[Reheat]

No it's not my problem. I offered to plenty of times in debates at this very forum to concede impact (for argument sake) in order to have a real discussion of North and South, Eyewitnesses vs. Mechanical Damage Path.

[Interpretation]I don't really want to discuss things that can be proven by physics, I'd rather discuss those issues which I can spin with burps of verbiage that you can't prove wrong to my satisfaction. If we discuss physics (which I don't understand) I lose. So be fair to me and let's avoid that, please, otherwise I won't have anything to say.[/Interpretation]

 

[WildCat]

Average American citizens who were witnesses to the horrors of 9/11 are not like UFO fanatics. You're disgusting.

He was talking about the <5% of Americans who think 9/11 was an inside job, not average Americans who don't suffer from mental illness or terminal stupidity.

 

[~enigma~]

He was talking about the <5% of Americans who think 9/11 was an inside job, not average Americans who don't suffer from mental illness or terminal stupidity.

TC knew that but he is a graduate of the pdoh school of word twisting. Apparently his GPA was 2.5...

 

[jhunter1163]

[Interpretation]I don't really want to discuss things that can be proven by physics, I'd rather discuss those issues which I can spin with burps of verbiage that you can't prove wrong to my satisfaction. If we discuss physics (which I don't understand) I lose. So be fair to me and let's avoid that, please, otherwise I won't have anything to say.[/Interpretation]

Zing!

 

[TC329]

Agreed. By the way, have you read Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11 by Patrick Creed and Rick Newman?

The authors interviewed over 150 people who lived through the horrors of that day and it's aftermath. All agree a large commercial airplane hit the Pentagon.

How many of them saw it?

I'm sure most people being told something happened wouldn't be suspicious especially after 2 planes hit the towers.

April Gallop was inside the Pentagon and exited through the exit hole. She doesn't believe a plane hit the Pentagon. And she's not alone either.

Many first responders and Pentagon workers have serious questions about the official story. Take a look at these powerful words of encouragement from a still currently enlisted Pentagon employee who heroically saved lives during the recovery efforts on 9/11.

I believe you also add Bob Pugh to that list. In fact we can go down the line and you can name people who weren't there when the event took place who dont question the government and i can go down the list and name people who weren't there when the event took place (minus April Gallop) too. What is that going to prove?

 

[TC329]

[Interpretation]I don't really want to discuss things that can be proven by physics, I'd rather discuss those issues which I can spin with burps of verbiage that you can't prove wrong to my satisfaction. If we discuss physics (which I don't understand) I lose. So be fair to me and let's avoid that, please, otherwise I won't have anything to say.[/Interpretation]

Reheat :

Which black box are you getting your data from for your calculations?

If you are not getting them from a black box how are you determining the true flight path, speed, altitude, bank, etc.?

Oh yeah, "Zing!"

 

[applecorped]

Reheat :

Which black box are you getting your data from for your calculations?

If you are not getting them from a black box how are you determining the true flight path, speed, altitude, bank, etc.?

Oh yeah, "Zing!"

That was embarrassing TC, even for you.

 

[Reheat]

Pentagon workers have serious questions about the official story.

What kind of questions do they have? How many support an InSiDe joOb?

List please, with sources.....

 

[Reheat]

Reheat :

Which black box are you getting your data from for your calculations?

See, what did I say?

You don't understand squat, do you?

No black box at all. The one that does exist doesn't show your theories anyway, now does it?

I don't need a black box at all. All I need is a POSITION OF THE AIRCRAFT!

Hint: Ranke doesn't have a clue either, so be careful what you parrot, or you'll embarrass yourself more than you do already.

 

[~enigma~]

Zing!

Hey JBA....I think tonight while I sip a Zima I am going to eat a few Zingers while I listen to my Zydego music and read The Three Cities Trilogy by Emile Zola.

 

[bobloblaw]

I swear you're like an impatient child, Dom.

I've already responded to your question on the CIT forum I believe.

But I'm happy to go through this again with you.

I am not investigating the Pentagon impact. I believe there has already been a thorough investigation, and the evidencing overwhelmingly points to AA 77 hit the Pentagon. You must understand that I am already convinced of this, and I am yet to see anything from CIT that even remotely has me thinking otherwise.

As I have already told you, if I am investigating anything it is CIT's methods and how they arrive at their conclusions.

My only goal in talking to the witnesses initially was to make them aware of what is being said in their name (particularly in the case of Sean Boger, whose testimony is literally pissed on by CIT) and to let their actions speak for themselves. Levi's photo was removed from the CIT website within hours - that says something to me.

Furthermore I have used this initial contact to ask them followup questions via email. However I'm not going to ask them if they saw the plane NoC - I'm going to do something better than that, Dom.

Here's what I asked Sean Boger, for instance -

Given that CIT allege you have indicated to them that the plane was north of the Navy Exchange, and published reports of your account have you stating that you watched the plane impact with and fully enter the building before ducking to the floor to avoid flying glass, acknowledging that these are mutually exclusive events, can I ask you -

1) Would it seem reasonable to you that you may be mistaken about either or these incidents, and if so, can you elaborate?

2) How do you respond to the assertion that you "deduced" the impact due to your alleged "north side" testimony?

Now doesn't that go straight to the heart of the issue?

As of this point I have had a reply from neither Levi or Sean. Levi seems to not want to talk about the issue, though Sean did not receive the question before the end of his workday.

So settle down, Dom. Have some patience because these things sometimes take time...

... but I understand why you're sweating

Edit: But while we're all waiting, let's go over those 40 foot light poles hidden away in the courier "white vans of 9/11."

The floor is yours.

 

[Reheat]

My, my, my.

I think the "CIT's whipping boy" has actually departed the Forum.

I guess he decided to have an early lunch. Of crow!

 

[TC329]

I swear you're like an impatient child, Dom.

I've already responded to your question on the CIT forum I believe.

But I'm happy to go through this again with you.

I am not investigating the Pentagon impact. I believe there has already been a thorough investigation, and the evidencing overwhelmingly points to AA 77 hit the Pentagon. You must understand that I am already convinced of this, and I am yet to see anything from CIT that even remotely has me thinking otherwise.

As I have already told you, if I am investigating anything it is CIT's methods and how they arrive at their conclusions.

My only goal in talking to the witnesses initially was to make them aware of what is being said in their name (particularly in the case of Sean Boger, whose testimony is literally pissed on by CIT) and to let their actions speak for themselves. Levi's photo was removed from the CIT website within hours - that says something to me.

Furthermore I have used this initial contact to ask them followup questions via email. However I'm not going to ask them if they saw the plane NoC - I'm going to do something better than that, Dom.

Here's what I asked Sean Boger, for instance -

Given that CIT allege you have indicated to them that the plane was north of the Navy Exchange, and published reports of your account have you stating that you watched the plane impact with and fully enter the building before ducking to the floor to avoid flying glass, acknowledging that these are mutually exclusive events, can I ask you -

1) Would it seem reasonable to you that you may be mistaken about either or these incidents, and if so, can you elaborate?

2) How do you respond to the assertion that you "deduced" the impact due to your alleged "north side" testimony?

Now doesn't that go straight to the heart of the issue?

As of this point I have had a reply from neither Levi or Sean. Levi seems to not want to talk about the issue, though Sean did not receive the question before the end of his workday.

So settle down, Dom. Have some patience because these things sometimes take time...

... but I understand why you're sweating

Edit: But while we're all waiting, let's go over those 40 foot light poles hidden away in the courier "white vans of 9/11."

The floor is yours.

Hey Bob,

You have actually witnesses.
1) Why you don't want to ask Sean if the plane flew over the Navy Annex. 2) Why you don't want to ask them which side of the Citgo it was on.
3) Why you don't want to ask them if they saw it hit light poles (like the one directly in front of Levi and the 5 Sean would have been watching during the planes approach).

You're a dishonest human being Bob. You have no interest in anything other than attacking Craig & Aldo.

4) If they are wrong about the flyover (and people are hallucinating low flying commercial airliners over the pentagon immediately after the impact) does that mean all the eyewitnesses to the plane being on the North side are all wrong, Bob?

5) If they're not wrong what is the implications of their accounts?

I'm trying to find an ounce of honesty and integrity in you. Is there any?

 

[TC329]

See, what did I say?

You don't understand squat, do you?

No black box at all. The one that does exist doesn't show your theories anyway, now does it?

I don't need a black box at all. All I need is a POSITION OF THE AIRCRAFT!

Hint: Ranke doesn't have a clue either, so be careful what you parrot, or you'll embarrass yourself more than you do already.

What data set are you using to accurately analyze the flight path of the plane that did not hit the Pentagon?

Where are you getting your starting information from?

Are you just inventing it and putting it wherever you want however you want?

 

[1337m4n]

By the way, before anyone asks, I am not recording the conversations I am having with these people nor will I at any point.

I am alerting these people to make them aware of what is being done in their name - their reactions will speak for themselves. I am using email to follow up my discussions with them and will ask pertinent questions where possible.

If someone else wants to get these guys on the video or audio record, by all means. But I think there are some privacy issues so there should be a general concensus on who does it. I'm not going to hand over contact information to a forum and then have dozens of people call the poor guys.

I don't suppose you were able to contact Lloyd England? CIT was not-so-subtly suggesting that he was an "accomplice". Boy would it be funny to watch CIT get sued for libel.

 

[DGM]

Hey Bob,

You have actually witnesses.
1) Why you don't want to ask Sean if the plane flew over the Navy Annex. 2) Why you don't want to ask them which side of the Citgo it was on.
3) Why you don't want to ask them if they saw it hit light poles (like the one directly in front of Levi and the 5 Sean would have been watching during the planes approach).

You're a dishonest human being Bob. You have no interest in anything other than attacking Craig & Aldo.

4) If they are wrong about the flyover (and people are hallucinating low flying commercial airliners over the pentagon immediately after the impact) does that mean all the eyewitnesses to the plane being on the North side are all wrong, Bob?

5) If they're not wrong what is the implications of their accounts?

I'm trying to find an ounce of honesty and integrity in you. Is there any?

What's wrong with the question he asked him? I don't see any dishonestly there.

 

[applecorped]

Hey Bob,

You have actually witnesses.
1) Why you don't want to ask Sean if the plane flew over the Navy Annex. 2) Why you don't want to ask them which side of the Citgo it was on.
3) Why you don't want to ask them if they saw it hit light poles (like the one directly in front of Levi and the 5 Sean would have been watching during the planes approach).

You're a dishonest human being Bob. You have no interest in anything other than attacking Craig & Aldo.

4) If they are wrong about the flyover (and people are hallucinating low flying commercial airliners over the pentagon immediately after the impact) does that mean all the eyewitnesses to the plane being on the North side are all wrong, Bob?

5) If they're not wrong what is the implications of their accounts?

I'm trying to find an ounce of honesty and integrity in you. Is there any?

????? So that is what you are REALLY trying to find out? It must be because you haven't found diddly to contradict what happened at the Pentagon.

 

[TC329]

I don't suppose you were able to contact Lloyd England? CIT was not-so-subtly suggesting that he was an "accomplice". Boy would it be funny to watch CIT get sued for libel.

Instead of asking Lloyd how he removed the light pole from his cab or how they blocked off the north end of 27 immediately after lloyd he's only going to ask "what do you think of CIT"?

And then there will be a big circle jerk here.

I understand why you guys are attacking the presenters of the evidence instead of corroborating it with the actual eyewitnesses.

You know these people saw what they saw where they saw they saw it. And you're only hope as a Bush worshipping terrorist is too attempt to discredit the people presenting the evidence.

This is the government revving up propaganda against CIT because they are well aware of the state of CIT's investigation into the Pentagon attack. This is sort of a "preemptive strike". Attempt to discredit the credibility of the presenters before they release what they now have.

 

[applecorped]

Instead of asking Lloyd how he removed the light pole from his cab or how they blocked off the north end of 27 immediately after lloyd he's only going to ask "what do you think of CIT"?

And then there will be a big circle jerk here.

I understand why you guys are attacking the presenters of the evidence instead of corroborating it with the actual eyewitnesses.

You know these people saw what they saw where they saw they saw it. And you're only hope as a Bush worshipping terrorist is too attempt to discredit the people presenting the evidence.

This is the government revving up propaganda against CIT because they are well aware of the state of CIT's investigation into the Pentagon attack. This is sort of a "preemptive strike". Attempt to discredit the credibility of the presenters before they release what they now have.

Are you a relative of Dr. Suess? (no disrespect the Geisel family).