The north side evidence validated to the point of redundancy

[TC329]

Enough of this silly drivel. Your conspiracy doesn't exist. Bush and the military are not identical. The Bush administration is not the same as the military. I don't give a rat's patoot about CIA "secret" prisons. I wish they existed and more terrorists were in them.

Stop ducking the questions I ask.

i'm confused ron.....you do this to me sometimes i must get caught up inside the vortex created by you spinning like a top but last i checked bush was commander-in-chief of that military.

correct me where i am wrong....?

we'll see how much you support torture in secret prison boats when the liberal half of the dictatorship is running things. i have a feelin you might change your opinion of it when the clintons get to decide who the "terrorists" are........

 

[TC329]

I'm not interested in learning what fleas think of lice.

I challenge you to respond to posts 84 and 85.

because you know its a bogus claim.

one of those lies that if repeated enough lurkers might start to believe is true.

but it is the lie.

 

[TC329]

Duh, why would your imaginary conspiracy knock down light poles without assembling bogus witnesses to claim that they saw it happen?

how many light poles were laying off in the grass somewhere out of the 5?

4 you say?

how hard would those have been to put there at say 3am [for example purpose only] under the cover of night by a black op squad? not hard at all you say?

how many people drivin by would be looking over the guardrails down at the grass looking for lightpoles on the morning of 9/11? most likely absolutely nobody you say?

hmmmmm then we have just 1 scene which then validates every claim attributed to this event and that's the lloyd england scene.

lloyd england tells a story of impalement that is impossible.

when asked how he and a perfect stranger removed the pole from his cab lloyd is dumbstruck and cannot even answer because he does not know.

and then you got the light pole which you can tell from the big groove in the street was actually drug over to be in front of lloyds cab.....

then the ingersol photos proved that lloyd wasnt even bothered by this traumatic experience because he and this perfect stranger hurried and removed the pole from his cab in less than 5 minutes after the event.....

hmmmmmmmm

Normally, I would end with, "Think about it." In your case, the request would be silly.

pot. kettle. black.

 

[nicepants]

Of the 100+ eyewitnesses who said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon, how many have you guys (cit) interviewed?

 

[TC329]

Just to spell it out with alphabet blocks, you have two choices:

1) You can acknowledge what we all know, i.e., that there are witnesses to the plane hitting the poles, in which case you have established that you were lying;

2) You can argue that the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy neglected to create any witnesses for an act they fabricated for reasons that cannot possibly make any sense.

I'm not expecting a reply.

the reasons are very simple. people walk by see lloyds scene then see light poles laying on the ground and the natural deduction after hearing a plane just fly by into the pentagon would be that the plane must have knocked them down....

lot of people in the press said they saw it......

but then you go ask lagasse and sucherman and so on and you find out that none of them actually saw it. they saw the light poles and then deduced it. then stating the plane knocked down light poles on its way in becomes part of the story even though they themselves somehow didn't witness that particular aspect but do know a low flying plane came in so it had to happen......

seems they would have the best kind of witnesses. honest everyday american citizens. maybe even one or two who embellish the account a little more after finding that out in order to be like 'ohhhh here is what happened to me' as if the story without that particular aspect wasn't amazing enough already.

it doesn't suprise me your incapable of understanding how the human mind works. you believe saddam had wmd's and didn't use them just gave them to the syrians instead for a reason that is beyond comprehension especially seeing how he ended up swinging in a noose.

Normally, I would end with, "Think about it." In your case, the request would be silly.

again......

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

William Middleton and Sean Boger are very valuable corroborating witnesses to this slower speed.

The slower speed is also corroborated by Morin, who estimates that it took "13 to 18 seconds" to pass from the Navy Annex to impact.
Interestingly, Middleton also corroborates Steve Chaconas' loop over Washington- as do the initial radar reports.

 

[TC329]

Of the 100+ eyewitnesses who said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon, how many have you guys (cit) interviewed?

and this is intentional disinfo from you jason. is that all you can do is create circles?

you know this answer.

you've seen this list plenty of times before.

 

[Mince]

Dude, you do admit that the quotes i listed are "More high school mentality from truthers duh-bunkers."???


Whood-a-thunk?

Pssst. Maybe you didn't get the memo. Bad behavior does not allow or excuse other bad behavior...for anybody.

 

[TC329]

I challenge you to respond to posts 84 and 85.

done.

now since you've admitted publicly many times to never having actually watched any interview conducted by cit i challenge you to go watch The North Side Flyover

and come back and explain why each individual is wrong.

although i already know you're not going to.

 

[TC329]

Pssst. Maybe you didn't get the memo. Bad behavior does not allow or excuse other bad behavior...for anybody.

just curious to see if you supported the statements of your colleagues....you didn't answer the question. you didn't think i wouldn't realize that did you?

so how come you don't point out their actions to them when they do it?

 

[John Blonn]

Among the many things I don't get about CIT's theory, the following is the most confusing. TC, perhaps you could enlighten me?

Government's plan: Fly the plane North of the Citgo. Flyover coordinated with explosion to hide the plane.

But then...fake physical damage along a DIFFERENT flight path? Why? Why ever do this? This makes NO SENSE whatsoever. Why not replicate damage to the Pentagon and surrounding environment that fits with the North of Citgo path? Not only does the flyover and the like have to go unnoticed, but they also set up light poles across a different path, set up bombs in the Pentagon that don't fit with a North of Citgo path, cause damage to the surroundings of the Pentagon that don't fit with the North path, etc. etc.

Why not create 'real' damage along the North path, rather then take the huge risk of faking damage across the South side path? This is completely illogical.

Your thoughts TC?

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Of the 100+ eyewitnesses who said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon, how many have you guys (cit) interviewed?

A sizable portion. Practically all the witnesses who could have seen the last moments of the flight path have been interviewed and they all place the plane on the North side of the Citgo. Middleton and Lagasse wouldn't have been able to see the plane at all if it was on the official fllight path- yet mysteriously they both hallucinated the plane on the opposite side of the Citgo. Whatever you believe about 9/11, you can't, in good conscience, ignore this evidence.

 

[Mince]

you've seen this list plenty of times before.

Oh this is classic. Among that list is (according to CIT):

Claims plane an American Airlines:
Richard Benedetto
James R. Cissell
Dennis Clem
Mike Dobbs, Marine Cmdr.
Penny Elgas
Cheryl Hammond
Joe Harrington
William Lagasse (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT)
Lincoln Leibner, Army Major
Elaine McCusker
Mitch Mitchell, Ret. Army Col. CBS news correspondent
Terry Morin, Former USMC aviator (CONTACTED by CIT, would not return phone calls)
Christopher Munsey, Navy Times reporter
Vin Narayanan (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
John O'Keefe (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
Steve Riskus
Mike Walter
Joel Sucherman (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
Frank Probst (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
James Ryan
Steve Storti
Tim Timmerman
Michael Tinyk (dark orange and blue) (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT)
Alan Wallace (white airplane with orange and blue trim)
Ian Wyatt
Afework Hagos (according to writer)(CONTACT ATTEMPTED by CIT)

(25 total)

The very implication made by CIT is that witnesses can often be very wrong, yet the only evidence they use to support their wild speculations is...ready for this...WITNESSES.


Classic CIT

 

[pomeroo]

i'm confused ron.....

Yes, you are spectacularly confused. No argument there.

you do this to me sometimes i must get caught up inside the vortex created by you spinning like a top but last i checked bush was commander-in-chief of that military.

correct me where i am wrong....?

You are one of those rare people who rarely gets anything right. You combine dishonesty, obtuseness, and sheer rock-headed imperviousness to reason to such a degree that you could be a 9/11 fantasist. Oh, wait--!

Yes, Bush is the commander-in-chief. Now, what that has to do with specific statements made by spokespersons for the military is anybody's guess.

we'll see how much you support torture in secret prison boats when the liberal half of the dictatorship is running things. i have a feelin you might change your opinion of it when the clintons get to decide who the "terrorists" are........

I was no fan of Bill Clinton. He was a crook and a liar. But he certainly understood who the terrorists were. There is no dictatorship, left or right. Obama would be a bad president because he is clueless about the jihadists, not because I think he is a jihadist. I wasn't born yesterday. Life goes on, whether a Republican or a Democrat occupies the White House. Any President who wants to handle evil, murderous barbarians roughly is my kind of guy.

 

[Mince]

just curious to see if you supported the statements of your colleagues....you didn't answer the question. you didn't think i wouldn't realize that did you?

so how come you don't point out their actions to them when they do it?

I do and have. Why do you presume otherwise? Posting on a message board makes people colleagues?

 

[pomeroo]

Among the many things I don't get about CIT's theory, the following is the most confusing. TC, perhaps you could enlighten me?

Government's plan: Fly the plane North of the Citgo. Flyover coordinated with explosion to hide the plane.

But then...fake physical damage along a DIFFERENT flight path? Why? Why ever do this? This makes NO SENSE whatsoever. Why not replicate damage to the Pentagon and surrounding environment that fits with the North of Citgo path? Not only does the flyover and the like have to go unnoticed, but they also set up light poles across a different path, set up bombs in the Pentagon that don't fit with a North of Citgo path, cause damage to the surroundings of the Pentagon that don't fit with the North path, etc. etc.

Why not create 'real' damage along the North path, rather then take the huge risk of faking damage across the South side path? This is completely illogical.

Your thoughts TC?

You are asking the same sort of question that caused TC to short-circuit in his hysterical non-answer to my posts 84 and 85. He is hopelessly trapped.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

But then...fake physical damage along a DIFFERENT flight path?

Good question! Unfortunately, we don't have the data to answer it. It's possible that the damage required needed to be precise (which would account for the physical damage) and the plane was merely flown NOC precisely because they wanted to avoid hitting light poles. It could also simply have been a mistake- we won't know until we have a new independent investigation.

 

[John Blonn]

Good question! Unfortunately, we don't have the data to answer it. It's possible that the damage required needed to be precise (which would account for the physical damage) and the plane was merely flown NOC precisely because they wanted to avoid hitting light poles. It could also simply have been a mistake- we won't know until we have a new independent investigation.

I will come back to your first explanation in a little bit. Let's start with your second contention, that it was a "mistake."

Before I go on to this, I have a question about the flyover theory. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the bombs set up in the Pentagon were set to explode in just such a way (timing, angle, etc.) to hide the plane from view as it flew over? So in other words the bombs were set to hide a plane flying over the Pentagon from a North of Citgo path, correct?

 

[pomeroo]

the reasons are very simple. people walk by see lloyds scene then see light poles laying on the ground and the natural deduction after hearing a plane just fly by into the pentagon would be that the plane must have knocked them down....

lot of people in the press said they saw it......

but then you go ask lagasse and sucherman and so on and you find out that none of them actually saw it. they saw the light poles and then deduced it. then stating the plane knocked down light poles on its way in becomes part of the story even though they themselves somehow didn't witness that particular aspect but do know a low flying plane came in so it had to happen......

seems they would have the best kind of witnesses. honest everyday american citizens. maybe even one or two who embellish the account a little more after finding that out in order to be like 'ohhhh here is what happened to me' as if the story without that particular aspect wasn't amazing enough already.

it doesn't suprise me your incapable of understanding how the human mind works. you believe saddam had wmd's and didn't use them just gave them to the syrians instead for a reason that is beyond comprehension especially seeing how he ended up swinging in a noose.



again......

You've been caught lying again. The adults here noticed that you can't begin to explain why your imaginary conspiracy would create physical evidence without fabricating witnesses to support it. Your problem is an easy one to solve: it's absurd. OF COURSE A REAL CONSPIRACY WOULD COORDINATE ITS EVIDENCE WITH ITS WITNESSES. EVERYONE gets that idea.

I have exposed your lies about Saddam's WMD often enough. You are beaten. The intelligence services of all nations monitoring Iraq agreed with the assessment of U.S. intelligence. There is nothing more to be said.

 

[pomeroo]

I will come back to your first explanation in a little bit. Let's start with your second contention, that it was a "mistake."

Before I go on to this, I have a question about the flyover theory. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the bombs set up in the Pentagon were set to explode in just such a way (timing, angle, etc.) to hide the plane from view as it flew over? So in other words the bombs were set to hide a plane flying over the Pentagon from a North of Citgo path, correct?

This one should send the liar packing.