The north side evidence validated to the point of redundancy

[TC329]

? What does this have to do with anything? Why bring Hani Hanjour into this? The plane had to have been flown by a government agent, not Hani. Who knows what happened to Hani in your world. I really don't get what you mean by this.



And flying over the Pentagon at last second at high speeds is any easier? Why do you think this? Evidence? Proof?



Hani's not flying the aircraft. And they're not flying into the Pentagon anyway, they're flying over it. All these objections apply to your flyover theory - it requires a pilot to complete very complex maneuvers at a fast speed in short time with NO MISTAKES.



Red herring.



Red herring.



Red herring.



Red herring.

1) it is easier to not crash into a building than to crash into it.

2) dont ask questions if you have no interest in discussing the answers.

i thought you were actually sincere. you're just slightly more polite than the rest of the lot.

 

[GregHouseMD]

I'm new here and I've got just a single question at this point for the CIT poeople.

If your evidence is as rock solid as you say, if it is so damning, why aren't you breaking down the doors at a major network with this solid piece of investigative work. Proof that what the American people have been told for years is all a lie.

WHY ARE YOU SELLING IT INSTEAD?

I'm sure this question has been asked before, I apologize if it's uh...redundant.

 

[pomeroo]

Testimony from people literally dieing in sub-zero ocean water, trying to muster the last ounce of energy to clasp on to a floating plank so as to avoid drowning, differ with regard to how the Titanic sank.
vs.
Unanimously corroborated testimony about a simple placement of the plane in relation to everyday physical references from people engaged in the mundane activities of life who haven't talked to each other about what they saw (which rules out witness bias).

Were you an english major, Pomeroo? No mere mortal could produce an analagy of such startling accuracy.

You hopeless dunce! Hundreds of survivors were clustered in lifeboats--not floating on planks in the North Atlantic! Here comes a really profound concept: if they were clinging to planks in the freezing waters (hint: iceberg), they would not have been survivors.

Yes, the analogy is perfect. I was an English/Philosophy major.

We have hundreds of people who saw the plane hit the Pentagon. The number that witnessed a flyover is zero. Most people describe a flight path consistent with the enormous amount of physical evidence. A tiny handful describe--or were browbeaten into describing by the unscrupulous cretins of the CIT--a different flight path (We will soon find out what they really describe). Assuming that the CIT liars are, uncharacteristically, not lying, why should the minority outweigh the majority?

Tell us again: Did the survivors who thought the Titanic went straight down prove that it didn't sink?

 

[John Blonn]

1) it is easier to not crash into a building than to crash into it.

And I should believe this why? This is not a self evident point. My main objection with this is that it's categorical.

2) dont ask questions if you have no interest in discussing the answers.

? I am discussing the answers. You're just not liking my responses.

i thought you were actually sincere. you're just slightly more polite than the rest of the lot.

I am quite sincere. Unless by sincere you mean "agrees with me."

 

[pomeroo]

lmao!!!!

again you are proven to be a joke.

and you wonder why no one takes you serious except the lemmings......

Some of us have noticed that you have been beaten to a pulp by awkward questions that you cannot hope to answer.

 

[Athyrio]

You know what, I'm LOLing too hard about the first claim to wait.

Here's the deadly problem with your first attempt.

You claim that the conspirators wanted 'precise' damage. You didn't define what you meant by this, but I'm going to assume you meant that they wanted the South side path to be as 'realistic' as possible, i.e. wanted the physical evidence to replicate as close as possible what would happen if the plane had 'really' flew across the South path.

So, therefore, you allege, they flew the plane to the North in order to prevent...

Wait.

Hold on.

You're trying to make me buy this: The conspirators flew the plane away from the South side path because they didn't want it to cause damage across the South side path...but wouldn't this be the MOST PRECISE WAY of causing damage across the South?

Again, you wrote: "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." What you're saying here is that the conspirators didn't want to fly the plane on the South side on the off chance that it hit something on the South side, revealing that the plane was...flying on the South side? That it's easier to fly the plane on the North and create fake damage on the South rather than actually just flying the plane to the south and letting the plane make the damage?


Instead of flying the plane to the south and ACTUALLY knocking down the poles, the conspirators actually decided to fly it on the North path so as to not knock down light poles, and then go ahead and prefab light poles and make them look like the plane flew to the South? What?

Could you please explain in more depth what you meant by your statement?

C'mon, TC329 - how can you get past this without admitting insanity or outright lying? And I ask you again - you know that there are lightpoles on the ground - you cannot deny this - if a plane did not knock them down, then at what point were they deliberately placed there and how come nobody in that vicinity saw anyone deliberately placing them there, especially in that guy's windshield?

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

For the timing, the angle, and all to work out, for the witnesses to see the plane to the North, 'hit' the Pentagon, but actually get away, the conspirators would have had to PLAN to fly the plane to the North.

No, not necessarily. The timing could depend on detection of the plane over the Pentagon, which is independent of flight path.
If the main purpose of the explosion is to distract, aircraft angle would be irrelevant. Furthermore, so long as the plane is behind the fireball, it would have been hidden, regardless of heading.

You're trying to make me buy this: The conspirators flew the plane away from the South side path because they didn't want it to cause damage across the South side path...but wouldn't this be the MOST PRECISE WAY of causing damage across the South?

These people do not leave anything to chance. Traveling at such high speeds, the possible damage to the plane from impacting a light pole could have been quite severe.

 

[~enigma~]

The north side evidence is not a theory. It is what all the witnesses unanimously report.

You do realize that withholding evidence is a crime right?

 

[~enigma~]

I hope you're not spending a lot of money on your fantasy stuff. Not a wise investment IMO.

Why would he spend money on a DVD he made with Alpo?

 

[John Blonn]

No, not necessarily. The timing could depend on detection of the plane over the Pentagon, which is independent of flight path.

Evidence? Why should I believe this? Because you say so?

If the main purpose of the explosion is to distract, aircraft angle would be irrelevant.

Evidence? Why should I believe this? Because you say so?

Furthermore, so long as the plane is behind the fireball, it would have been hidden, regardless of heading.

Evidence? Why should I believe this? Because you say so?

These people do not leave anything to chance. Traveling at such high speeds, the possible damage to the plane from impacting a light pole could have been quite severe.

Still haven't gotten to the heart of the question. Why not avoid the South altogether, fly it to the North, and be done with it? Why fake south side damage?

And anyway, don't leave anything to chance? Your conspirators leave an INCREDIBLE amount to chance.

What are the chances that people on nearby roads and in nearby buildings see the flyover from the other side, as clear as day? VERY HIGH

What are the chances someone notices people planting physical evidence on the South side path? VERY HIGH

What are the chances that one or two or three of the hundreds involved in the conspiracy whistleblow? VERY HIGH

What are the chances many things could go wrong, blowing their cover, and revealing the conspiracy to the world? VERY HIGH

&c &c &c

 

[TC329]

I'm new here and I've got just a single question at this point for the CIT poeople.

If your evidence is as rock solid as you say, if it is so damning, why aren't you breaking down the doors at a major network with this solid piece of investigative work. Proof that what the American people have been told for years is all a lie.

WHY ARE YOU SELLING IT INSTEAD?

I'm sure this question has been asked before, I apologize if it's uh...redundant.

its freely available.
as for "selling" it, i can assure you no one is making millions of dollars or hundreds of thousands of dollars.
hotel rooms, accomodations, airline tickets, etc all drains your bank account.

as for the major media......

lets look at how CNN [i.e. not the administration's cheerleaders at faux news] treats impeachable allegations against this administration as example a.

 

[TC329]

You do realize that withholding evidence is a crime right?

so where's those arlington 911 tapes at?

 

[~enigma~]

CIT = Citizen's Investigative Team. Kinda like a retarded Scooby-Do and gang.

PFT = Pilots For Truth. Kinda like a retarded CIT.

Clueless Investigoogle Team
Pretty Foolish Team

 

[TC329]

C'mon, TC329 And I ask you again - you know that there are lightpoles on the ground - you cannot deny this - if a plane did not knock them down, then at what point were they deliberately placed there and how come nobody in that vicinity saw anyone deliberately placing them there, especially in that guy's windshield?

i have already addressed this in this thread. please read through as i don't enjoy repeating myself.

 

[Athyrio]

so where's those arlington 911 tapes at?

Hey, you answer that post? Answer a few above it , OK?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

there are many variables....

for example had there been a pilot of hani hanjour's true ability it could crash way before the target or way after the target.

taking a 757 and slamming it into the pentagon is a lot harder than some armchair researchers would leave you to believe.

the target was specific. hani can't fly this into donald rumsfelds lap for example he must hit the exact target with military precision.

so there are many many variants for what could actually go wrong which is why the original drills regarding such an attack were deemed "too unrealisitic".

the day before the attacks rumsfeld announced trillions of dollars was missing. the day after he did so the people tracing that info were dead and all the records in regards to all of these taxpayer dollars were destroyed by hani hanjour and company.

you always look to see who benefits in any investigation. time has showed us who has benefitted.

go read pnac's rebuilding america.

look where we are.

And flying a plane over top of a building in front of 1000s of people without anyone seein and causing many people to see the plane actually hit the building when it didn,t as well as planting an entire planes worth of parts and people in front of 1000s of people without anyone noticing and getting that plane and debris from some crash site to the scene within an hour and without anyone noticing, and knocking down trees and lamp posts in front of 1000s of people without any of them noticing and doing it all on a whim that someone just happens to not notice all this circus work going on in rush hour......


Well, that's a bit harder than some armchair warriors over at the 9/11 cult tabloids seem to think. And speaking of armchair warriors, what exactly are the clowns over at the CIT and PFT cults doing about this proven event? I mean it's uncontestable according to your peanut gallery, so all you are doing about it is sitting on an online form and trying to sell DVDs out of the back of a car? Really? Shouldn't a proven crime be reported to the police, or be talked about no all the national news networks and talk show circuits? Especially one that involves the biggest crime in the history of man?

Please tell us why the most you would do with a solved criminal case would be to make some homemade CDs to sell on a web site. It's important enough for you kids to waste all your time with on the internet, but not important enough to file a lawsuit? Come on, the evidence is validated to the point of redundancy, so you should have nothing to lose by filing a lawsuit right?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Oh and BTW, anyone who says that Rumsfeld announced that trillions of dollars went missing IS A FLAT OUT LIAR. you cannot make that statement without lying. It's not in any way shape or form true, nor is it even possible. It's also been discussed to death over and over by you same people. Which means that you aren't simply misreporting, but you are knowingly LYING through your teeth.

So why should anyone believe some kids who are openly LYING? And if you are so concerned with truth, then why do you feel the need to LIE Dom?

 

[Reheat]

Pardon me, but TLB and TC329 I know your busy, but how do your new witnesses in this earthquake rending new set of witnesses get around this little gem?

How did the aircraft end up on the far North side of the Navy Annex? You call that corroborated in view of the other witnesses?

The path described by these witnesses is even more impossible than those described by the CITGO group. Then we add the "flyover witness" to the gaggle we have a triple impossible feat.

Yea, it's corroborated all right. A corroborated bunch of crap by a gaggle of wankers!

 

[Reheat]

so where's those arlington 911 tapes at?

One thing is for sure, they are not behind that preposition. What kind of education do you have, Dom? Did you manage to finish 8th grade?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Sometimes corroboration requires a little lying on the part of the researchers.