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

[TC329]

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

Whether you disagree with CIT or not if these eyewitnesses are all correct (which I have no reason to believe any of them aren't) don't you think passing up an opportunity to have a conversation of their experience vs. the official story is tragedy?

Doesn't anyone here get it?

Can't anyone here put the ******** aside and say "What if all these eyewitnesses are telling the truth and are correct?"

Anyone?

You can still hate Craig, Aldo, & Me all you want, I promise. But what if the plane did fly on the North side of the Citgo station?

 

[TC329]

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

one of those "saw" should have been a "say"

 

[bobloblaw]

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.

Do you know that actually crossed my mind about an hour ago.

 

[DGM]

Whether you disagree with CIT or not if these eyewitnesses are all correct (which I have no reason to believe any of them aren't) don't you think passing up an opportunity to have a conversation of their experience vs. the official story is tragedy?

Doesn't anyone here get it?

Can't anyone here put the ******** aside and say "What if all these eyewitnesses are telling the truth and are correct?"

Anyone?

You can still hate Craig, Aldo, & Me all you want, I promise. But what if the plane did fly on the North side of the Citgo station?

You didn't answer my question. What's wrong with the question Bob (?) asked?

ETA I don't hate anyone.

 

[TC329]

You didn't answer my question. What's wrong with the question Bob (?) asked?

Nothing. I was just hoping to see something a little more detailed. Just a few more questions.

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?

But what happens if Stephens and Boger say they are not mistaken about any part of the incident?

Then what will people on your side of the fence (including youself say?)

 

[TjW]

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

I was not speaking of witnesses. But you and your fellow fantasists behavior parallels UFO believer behavior. You can't or won't describe an actual flight path. You will only say it didn't follow the generally accepted flight path.

I understand your problem. If it followed the generally accepted flight path, you wouldn't have special knowledge that makes you smarter, more aware than the "sheeple" that accept the majority of eyewitness testimony and physical evidence.

On the other hand, if you specify a particular flight path, high school level physics can show whether that particular flight path is possible. And that would once again destroy your special knowledge.

On the gripping hand, you either aren't capable of, or don't care enough to do high school level physics to come up with a physically possible flight path that is consistent with what you believe to have happened.

 

[Reheat]

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?

If you really understood you'd realize the STUPIDITY of this question. I have explained this, not only, in the paper, but at least a dozen times already in this Forum.

No, I'm not going to explain it again. It's explained adequately in several locations. Nice attempt to skirt the issue, but it is a FAILURE and YOU LOSE.

 

[bobloblaw]

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"?

Wasn't Lloyd assisted in removing the pole by a nearby driver?

Wasn't the traffic blocked behind Lloyd because his taxi was sideways across two lanes and there was a big freakin' pole laying down in the way?

My dealer has run out of good ****. Where are you getting yours from?

 

[WildCat]

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

He's just elaborating on Craig's see-saw analogy. It renders moot the need for any math.

 

[bobloblaw]

Yeah I still don't get how my questions were dishonest either. Why should I ask them if they saw the plane NoC when my questions assert that they already said they did?

 

[DGM]

Nothing. I was just hoping to see something a little more detailed. Just a few more questions.



But what happens if Stephens and Boger say they are not mistaken about any part of the incident?

Then what will people on your side of the fence (including youself say?)

Then you ask other questions. Keeping it simple and non leading.

 

[Reheat]

BTW, TC329, you demonstrate again and again that you don't understand the physics. This is why you're a laughing stock of even many in the "troof movement" and a dedicated agenda driven "twoofer.

 

[1337m4n]

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.

You should be happy if CIT gets sued for libel, Dom.

For one thing, they kicked you out! Don't you want revenge?

But more importantly, if they get sued for libel, it'll finally put your NoC theory to the test in a court of law. Isn't that what you've always wanted?

 

[1337m4n]

Can't anyone here put the ******** aside and say "What if all these eyewitnesses are telling the truth and are correct?"

It would mean that the plane hit the Pentagon.

You didn't forget the one thing all their testimonies have in common did you?

 

[bobloblaw]

You should be happy if CIT gets sued for libel, Dom.

For one thing, they kicked you out! Don't you want revenge?

But more importantly, if they get sued for libel, it'll finally put your NoC theory to the test in a court of law. Isn't that what you've always wanted?

That is brilliant!

Haha!

Imagine, all their talk about issuing subpeonas when the time came... the time could come a lot sooner than they think!

All of the names they've dragged through the mud... Lloyd England, Father McGraw, Keith Wheelhouse, Mike Walter, etc. It would be an endless procession.

 

[1337m4n]

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.

I also meant to ask you...why haven't they released what they now have?

I mean it is smoking gun evidence right?

 

[jhunter1163]

I also meant to ask you...why haven't they released what they now have?

I mean it is smoking gun evidence right?

This is an excellent point. It would (supposedly) be so easy for Craig and Aldo to shut us up. Just release this super-duper quadruple-corroborated smoking-weed evidence. But they won't. They won't because they can't. If they did, their manipulation of the witness statements would be instantly and painfully obvious. Release it, and the game is over.

Not that it isn't already painfully obvious...

 

[bje]

Serious questions my foot.

Many first responders and Pentagon workers have serious questions about the official story.

Sure, uh huh.

I guess that explains why you, Ranke, Marquis, and Balsamo go into hysterical meltdowns when repeatedly asked by numerous posters to present the statements of the firefighters, rescuers, wreckage recovery crews, and construction workers who were inside the Pentagon and either saw or removed the wreckage, and those who sorted through it in the open, on the lawn of the Pentagon, people numbering close to 1,000 or more in total.

You know as well as anyone CIT's dodge of that question for the last two years.

Serious questions my foot. Provide the statements from these people now. Put your money where your mouths are, TC329.

 

[The Big Dog]

You can still hate Craig, Aldo, & Me all you want, I promise. But what if the plane did fly on the North side of the Citgo station?

Oh stop with the false sincerity Dom. We've read your barely-literate, profanity- laced, spittle-soaked diatribes at LC, where you repeatedly refer to us as "J**F Scum." Now you sleaze back here and want to engage in a "real discussion." Please.

Oh well, since you asked so nicely: CIT has falsely led its witnesses, cherry picked evidence, thinks their own witnesses lied to them, ignores contrary evidence, cannot understand math, admits they falsely represented themselves to obtain witnesses, are arrogant, ignorant prevaricators, their attacks on actual witnesses are despicable, and are the laughing stock of the truth movement. Not only have they not proved a NOC path, the ONLY thing that CIT has been able to do is find witnesses who confirm that the plane hit the Pentagon.

Now, Dom, why don't you crawl back under the rock from which you came.

Signed, JREF SCUM.

 

[A W Smith]

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?

There are several good reasons why few if any noticed Light pole impacts. Their attention was focused on a very large very fast moving object. The poles are very slim and stationary. You can hide a light pole 200 feet away behind a pencil held at arms length. Ever been to any kind of auto race? when watching a car move at speed can you read the billboard advertisements on the safety barrier beyond or in front of them? Dom you KNOW this. it is you who doesn't have an ounce of honesty and integrity. You are a dishonest human being Dom,