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

[JamesB]

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.

OK, so if "only", say,25 of them saw the plane hit the Pentagon, and the other 125 witneses only saw parts of the plane and picked up the body parts of the passengers, how exactly would that help your case?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

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

What if my aunt was my uncle? This isn't about playing make-believe.

 

[e^n]

I don't want to discuss bank angles and speeds and altitude and where a plane passed precisely over the Pentagon at because none of that can be determined based on eyewitness accounts.

Why not? I've identified various accounts of speeds, locations and bank angles. You have talked to more of the people there than I have.

What can be determined is corroboration among witnesses vs their contradictions vs each other and the mechanical damage path.
This is what I am looking for. Everything up until they say the word "impact".

OK, so my flight path provides what I believe the be the least amount of g force and therefore least amount of bank physically possible as far as I know. Why are you resisting having a discussion on this? We can establish a baseline for comparison which will allow us to potentially gauge eyewitness accounts.

 

[Bobert]

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.

It can be found on the CIT site a picture of Father McGraw tending to a wounded individual with a bunch of fireman around as they are moving the person to an ambulance.
Criag makes a comment about how Father McGraw looks out of place in the photo.
Imagine that Father McGraw trying to give comfort to the wounded what a scumbag!!!
How dare he do that!!!
Craig has no shame whatsoever.

 

[TC329]

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.

Tearing through those light poles allegedly sending them flying through the air. There is no way on Earth you would not notice this if you are watching the plane approach. The light poles may even be more terrifying because unlike the plane of a set course these would be thrown around very violently and unpredictably.

We are talking about 5 light poles here. Your notion that people "wouldn't notice" them being tossed around like toothpicks is utter rubbish.

The poles are very slim and stationary.

Yeah until they're flying through the air at people and impaling vehicles......

You can hide a light pole 200 feet away behind a pencil held at arms length.

not one being violently thrown around...........

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,

lol......

you're the one telling people that others wouldn't notice the huge 757 they're staring at ripping lightpoles out of the ground and thorwing them violently about, not me.

I think its safe to say you are the dishonest human being here.

If Sean Boger & Levi Stephens don't "recant" their North side claim what will you say of that?

Will it be another case of everyone being mistaken on every single detail other than the impact?

 

[TC329]

Why not? I've identified various accounts of speeds, locations and bank angles. You have talked to more of the people there than I have.

If a car comes flying by and someone says he must be doin 100 it doesn't mean he is. He could be doing 75. It is an estimate based on observation. Purely speculation and not anything that will get anyone convicted in a courtroom. But if the eyewitness also notes the car is driving against traffic then it's pretty safe to say that is the claim that will stick in court. This is no different.

OK, so my flight path provides what I believe the be the least amount of g force and therefore least amount of bank physically possible as far as I know. Why are you resisting having a discussion on this? We can establish a baseline for comparison which will allow us to potentially gauge eyewitness accounts.

Why am i "avoiding" this?

I don't know where the plane flew precisely.
I dont know the precise speed of the plane.
I dont know the precise altitude of the plane.
I dont know if it shot over the Pentagon to the north or south of the "impact".
I don't know where it was when Officer Roosevelt saw it.

I've been around this too long to get set up.
What I do know is that the plane approached over the Navy Annex on the NoC which is irreconcilable with the mechanical damage path. None of which seems to have been witnessed by any of these witnesses.

Odd, don't you agree in the slightest?

 

[DGM]

Tearing through those light poles allegedly sending them flying through the air. There is no way on Earth you would not notice this if you are watching the plane approach. The light poles may even be more terrifying because unlike the plane of a set course these would be thrown around very violently and unpredictably.

We are talking about 5 light poles here. Your notion that people "wouldn't notice" them being tossed around like toothpicks is utter rubbish.




Yeah until they're flying through the air at people and impaling vehicles......



not one being violently thrown around...........




lol......

you're the one telling people that others wouldn't notice the huge 757 they're staring at ripping lightpoles out of the ground and thorwing them violently about, not me.

I think its safe to say you are the dishonest human being here.

If Sean Boger & Levi Stephens don't "recant" their North side claim what will you say of that?

Will it be another case of everyone being mistaken on every single detail other than the impact?

Don't forget this all happened and was over in 1 or 2 seconds. Not much time to focus on the details.

 

[TC329]

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

What if my aunt was my uncle? This isn't about playing make-believe.

You're right so you should remove yourself from this discussion little boy.

LaGasse, Brooks, Paik, Turcios, Morin, Stephens, Boger, etc aren't "make believe" and neither is what they witnessed.

 

[jhunter1163]

What's more likely to be noticed, light poles knocked down by a 757 flying 500+ mph or light poles being placed on the road by a bunch of guys driving *ahem* white vans?

 

[TC329]

Don't forget this all happened and was over in 1 or 2 seconds. Not much time to focus on the details.

There's always some excuse for the Bush Administration, isn't there?

Should I post the list of everything else they've been caught lying about so you can call it irrelevant and not proving of any pattern like your colleagues here do?

Perhaps because you are one of the more polite people I've encountered I expect a little more intellectual honesty out of you.....

 

[TC329]

What's more likely to be noticed, light poles knocked down by a 757 flying 500+ mph or light poles being placed on the road by a bunch of guys driving *ahem* white vans?

5 light poles being uprooted and thrown through the air by a 757.

Considering 4 of the light poles were planted during the cover of night and only Lloyd was actually staged I would definitely say the 5 poles being uprooted and violently thrown around.

Light poles are big and heavy and when being thrown through the air unpredictably would scare the living **** out of any human being within the vicinity. It would be extremely difficult not to notice such an event especially while staring directly at the plane.

Ever see someone get shot before? If you have, you know even if you don't look at the individual again you will never forget the image you saw in that split second. If you deny that you're being dishonest with yourself.

 

[DGM]

There's always some excuse for the Bush Administration, isn't there?

Should I post the list of everything else they've been caught lying about so you can call it irrelevant and not proving of any pattern like your colleagues here do?

Perhaps because you are one of the more polite people I've encountered I expect a little more intellectual honesty out of you.....

Run across interstate 80 and note the license plates of the cars that your dodging. There will be a test.

The plane hit the poles then the Pentagon in under 1 second. Speed will do that. All the while the wittinesses were [rule 10]ing their pants and hoping not to die.

 

[Bobert]

You're right so you should remove yourself from this discussion little boy.

LaGasse, Brooks, Paik, Turcios, Morin, Stephens, Boger, etc aren't "make believe" and neither is what they witnessed.

You may have to cross Boger off of your list because it appears he may not have given permission to be recorded.
Only 2 of your witnesses have been contacted and remarkably 2 of them have issues with what you have done.
I am betting the odds are that more of your witnesses would fall into this category as well.

 

[Bobert]

Light poles are big and heavy and when being thrown through the air unpredictably would scare the living **** out of any human being within the vicinity. It would be extremely difficult not to notice such an event especially while staring directly at the plane.

SPECULATOIN.
They are designed to break away at the base.
You are claiming that they were thrown through the air now it is time to back that up with evidence or proof.
The lack of witnesses commenting on the light poles IS NOT PROOF that they were not knocked away by flight 77.
In the real world Dom your extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
You spin well you should join MC Aldo and tour the country.

 

[jhunter1163]

5 light poles being uprooted and thrown through the air by a 757.

Considering 4 of the light poles were planted during the cover of night and only Lloyd was actually staged I would definitely say the 5 poles being uprooted and violently thrown around.

Light poles are big and heavy and when being thrown through the air unpredictably would scare the living **** out of any human being within the vicinity. It would be extremely difficult not to notice such an event especially while staring directly at the plane.

Ever see someone get shot before? If you have, you know even if you don't look at the individual again you will never forget the image you saw in that split second. If you deny that you're being dishonest with yourself.

How do you get a 40-foot lightpole in a van?

 

[Bobert]

That one facet alone would take many workers and a whole lot of attention to what they were doing.
I think that Craig and Aldo should have just submitted this as a novel.
They would be rich right now!

 

[Disbelief]

If Sean Boger & Levi Stephens don't "recant" their North side claim what will you say of that?

Will it be another case of everyone being mistaken on every single detail other than the impact?

Yeah like the impact, which all your witnesses agree on, is such a minor point. What would be a more lasting image to these witnesses, what led up to the impact or the impact itself?

 

[jhunter1163]

Ever wish you were a kitten? I know I do sometimes.

 

[bje]

What I do know is that the plane approached over the Navy Annex on the NoC which is irreconcilable with the mechanical damage path.

Then present the statements of the witnesses we consistently ask you for.

What are you afraid of?

 

[TjW]

I don't know where the plane flew precisely.
I dont know the precise speed of the plane.
I dont know the precise altitude of the plane.
I dont know if it shot over the Pentagon to the north or south of the "impact".
I don't know where it was when Officer Roosevelt saw it.

It doesn't look to me like you have much to discuss regarding flight paths.

Your assertion seems to be that all the physical evidence, both inside and outside the Pentagon, was faked.

If the evidence inside was not faked, then the vector of the internal destruction gives an approximate approach heading for the aircraft. That direction is not compatible with an approach substantially further north or south of the generally-accepted flight path, because the bank angles would be much higher than were reported.

If we assume all the physical evidence was faked, North or South of the Citgo is immaterial, since the difficulty of faking it does not change regardless of the flight path.
In fact, installing even-easier-to-break-away light poles and flying the aircraft on the path most observers agreed on would seem to be a simpler solution to at least part of the problem. (The plot does not stand or fail on whether light poles fall down during the attack, so if they're hit, fine, otherwise, who cares?).

However, the fact that all the witnesses say the aircraft that they saw hit the Pentagon would seem to be pertinent.
You maintain that you find it difficult to believe that any person could witness an airliner knocking down a relatively small and inconsequential* light pole and not notice it. Yet you have no problem at all with maintaining that every single witness was mistaken when they report that they saw a big airplane hit a big building. That seems to be a case of swallowing camels whole, but straining at gnats.

*I use inconsequential here as in: a bicycle rider is inconsequential to a person driving a car. Any bike rider can cite many cases of drivers "failing to see" clearly visible bicycle or motorcycle riders.