The north side evidence validated to the point of redundancy

[CptColumbo]

So "The north side evidence validated to the point of redundancy" should really read; "The north side evidence validated to the point of redundancy, as long as you ignore all the majority of the eyewitnesses and all the physical evidence."

As I've written before in other threads, if the "evidence" cannot stand up to scrutiny here (at the JREF forum) how does CIT plan to convince a court to listen? Are they hoping the judge and/or jury are as obtuse as they are?

In the end IMO they want to make money off the tragedy and give themselves a sense of self importance, that reality does not recognize.

 

[nicepants]

again you are being purposely dishonest.

cit "refuses" to interview no one. cit has contacted more witnesses as stated in the list and others as of yet haven't been located.

Poor word-choice on my part, I should have used the word "fail", not "refuse".

Do you think that you can generate an accurate narrative of the events at the Pentagon when you FAIL to interview over 84% of the eyewitnesses?

you're free to try and help find means of contacting the others and verifying their statements and thus for duh-bunking the the 13 NoC eyewitnesses and the flyover

That should have been part of your "investigation". I'm not going to do your legwork for you.

 

[bobloblaw]

Ugh.

So apparently Sean Boger's account is in the 2nd part of their new presentation, or so I've just read on LCF.

I'm only a few minutes into it and I'm already nauseated as Craig explains how even though one of his star witness is lying he's really telling the truth where it matters.

 

[TheRedWorm]

well plane debris with serial numbers that can be confirmed as being there through photographic evidence placing it at the scene at that time would be a start but again this thread has nothing to do with the pentagon.

In another thread you posted this. (My mistake for asking it there instead of here in the first place) Is it fair to say that this is your standard of evidence for every event? Or does this standard only apply to the flightpath and subsequent crash of flight 77 at the Pentagon?

bump

 

[jhunter1163]

If I had Youtube skillz, I would make a video showing CIT's witness statements, with a big green "TRUE!" and a bell when they said something CIT claimed to be true, and a big red "LIE!" with a buzzer when they said something CIT disagreed with (i. e. "the plane hit the building").

This would really highlight the cherrypicking. "DING!" "BUZZ!" "DING!" "BUZZ!" "BUZZ!" "DING!"

 

[robeeb]

I'm curious about why you think this is true. Are you a pilot? Do you have any flight experience?

TC329,

Why no answer to my question?

 

[bje]

again you are being purposely dishonest.

cit "refuses" to interview no one.

STOP lying, TC329. CIT specifically refuses to interview eyewitnesses.

Craig Ranke:
"Even if someone interviewed all allegedly 1,000 people that you speak of, if they didn't see the plane nothing they could possibly say could refute the information we present."

you're free to try and help find means of contacting the others and verifying their statements

It is not our responsibility to conduct YOUR investigation.

Tell us, TC329, when are you going to stop lying about the eyewitnesses? CIT admitted never interviewing any of the over 1,000 key eyewitnesses at the Pentagon.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

1:01 - 1:05

according to some estimates we cannot track 2.3 trillion dollars in transactions.

But DOm, you said trillions were "MISSING". Please show us the quote of that. You are trying to lead people to believe that money just disappeared. That's not remotely what the quote you just presented says. And of course had to listened to the speech for more than the single quote you use, you might understand what he was talking about and it would be much more obvious to everyone that you are flat out LYING.

For the people who aren't aware of the issue, i will explain. Dom already knows this, it's just that he is well...LYING. What Dom wants people to think is that 2.3 trillion dollars just suddenly disappeared from the defense budget. **Poof** like magic. What Dom wants you to believe is that 6 years of defense budget are suddenly gone. 6 years. So for 6 years not a single military employee nor contractor has gotten a dime because all that 6 years of money went missing. So for 6 years those millions of families went with no income and never said a word and to this day have not once complained. Dom wants us to think that military employees can live for 6 years with no income. Tell us how they do it Dom. Do they have some kind of amazing layaway plan Dom?

Of course anyone who actually listens to Rumsfeld speech outside of the DISHONEST quote mining on Dom's part will know the answer and will easily see that Dom is outright LYING about that claim. Because what Rumsfeld is talking about the red tape and the outdated methods of accounting which take so long to process the spending that there is a backlog of around 2.3 trillion dollars. That means it takes them about 6 years to do all the accounting. They spend a dollar today and it takes years before the accounting process catches up with how that dollar was spent. Rumsfeld was complaining about this problem because it allows people to take advantage and abuse the system knowing it will be several years before the accounting catches up with them.

Dom, please stop LYING.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

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?

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

CIT specifically refuses to interview eyewitnesses.

You, BJE, are lying, since this quote:

"Even if someone interviewed all allegedly 1,000 people that you speak of, if they didn't see the plane nothing they could possibly say could refute the information we present."

says nothing about 'refusing to interview' anyone. If you want to have a discussion instead of gaslighting everyone, please supply a source for the 'fireman' quote you referenced in the other thread.

 

[~enigma~]

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......?

Not to mention how they not only planted some evidence but they planted severed body parts that were seen by most firefighters there that day as well as airplane parts throughout thwe impact area and courtyard and even OVER the other side of the pentagon. And for good measure they even planted more severed body parts AND airplane parts on the roof of the pentagon. And people wonder why I think the truth movement and in particular CIT are disgusting sub-human cretins...

 

[Jonnyclueless]

1000s of people saw the plane come in and none of them saw a plane fly over which would be more more visible than an impact. And the press and authorities don't take you CIT kids seriously? How can that be?!?!

 

[bje]

You, BJE, are lying, since this quote:

says nothing about 'refusing to interview' anyone. If you want to have a discussion instead of gaslighting everyone, please supply a source for the 'fireman' quote you referenced in the other thread.

Now you're lying too, TLB. You know CIT has presented NO statements from any of the key eyewitnesses to the wreckage.

You know that both Ranke and Marquis dismiss the physical evidence of the wreckage and would not interview any of the over 1,000 key eyewitnesses to the wreckage.

You even admitted here that in order for there to be a true investigation, those key eyewitnesses would have to be interviewed.

Let's stop the lying, TLB, from you, TC329, CIT, and all the other the other no-planers.

 

[~enigma~]

You even admitted here that in order for there to be a true investigation, those key eyewitnesses would have to be interviewed.

What is the use to interview witness to the wreckage and body parts when that investigation will say that flight 77 hit the pentagon? Seems totally unnecessary and only needed to massage the egos of a few idiot truthers.

 

[beachnut]

if money can't be tracked does that mean the tracker knows where it is?

Rummy wants to know, to the penny, where, when, and how all the money was spent.

So please, take all the money that went though your hands for the last 5 years, and tell me to the penny, the time, the purchase, the reason, the result, the category, etc. you did with all your money now!

Oops, you lost all your money too. You have to be the worst researcher in the whole world.

Tiny aircraft buzzing suv, flying under wires, and to you it is reality of some super secret CT. No 93, no 77, no real ideas. Cool, what do you do to make reality melt away? What drug is it that makes you irrational?

What does the Pentagon accounting problems have to do with 9/11? Do you know where the money really comes from? You actually think one office in the Pentagon was wiped to cover-up Rummy's dissatisfaction with his accounting staff?

The real motive would be to have, 77 hit Rummy's office so the guys with the money would not be bothered with the hothead wanting to know what the our money was doing! You need help with your fantasy, your ideas are pure armature and real stupid.

Does HBO have real sex series, they could use you and CIT as a real stupid series. I better trade mark that now.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Now you're lying too, TLB. You know CIT has presented NO statements from any of the key eyewitnesses to the wreckage.

No, I don't know that- I've asked you to provide a source for your "fireman" reference in the other thread. Furthermore, even if CIT presented no statements from first responders, it does not follow that they 'refuse to interview them'.

You know that both Ranke and Marquis dismiss the physical evidence of the wreckage

Wrong. The facade damage is what caused the interest in the Pentagon in the first place and the wreckage has not been proven to come from AA77.

and would not interview any of the over 1,000 key eyewitnesses to the wreckage.

Wrong. You've yet to post a quote from CIT stating their refusal to interview eyewitnesses to the wreckage.
Since you have no evidence for refusal, the question is whether CIT has interviewed said witnesses. In order for me to answer that question you're going to have to give me a source for that fireman quote from the other thread.

 

[WildCat]

No, I don't know that- I've asked you to provide a source for your "fireman" reference in the other thread. Furthermore, even if CIT presented no statements from first responders, it does not follow that they 'refuse to interview them'.

Of course they refuse to interview them! A fireman who catches on to the fact that the CIT are calling them all liars who are covering up the crime of the century might not be able to resist the urge to smack the smirk off the faces of the CIT liars.

And to recap: not a single one of the people interviewed by CIT think there was a flyover, and all of them say Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

 

[applecorped]

No, I don't know that- I've asked you to provide a source for your "fireman" reference in the other thread. Furthermore, even if CIT presented no statements from first responders, it does not follow that they 'refuse to interview them'.

Wrong. The facade damage is what caused the interest in the Pentagon in the first place and the wreckage has not been proven to come from AA77.

Wrong. You've yet to post a quote from CIT stating their refusal to interview eyewitnesses to the wreckage.
Since you have no evidence for refusal, the question is whether CIT has interviewed said witnesses. In order for me to answer that question you're going to have to give me a source for that fireman quote from the other thread.

So there was wreckage there?

 

[pomeroo]

And this changes things how? Those in lifeboats were scrambling to save their families or at least asking about the fate of their families. You had to fight to even get in a lifeboat and even if you did, some people were thrown overboard!

Unless they were saved by the people in the lifeboats.

Stop babbling. There were hundreds of survivors. Some claimed that the ship went straight down. Others, correctly, remembered it breaking in half. Were the ones whose memories proved faulty "liars"? Did they prove that the ship didn't sink.

SPEAK UP!

Then you need to retake "Analogy 101" since your analogy is idiotic.

The analogy is apt.

Wrong.

Nope.

Wrong- the number is unknown but no less than one.

Stop lying. The number is exactly zero. When the moronic frauds of the CIT first fabricated their insane fantasy, the number of flyover witnesses quickly rose to zero and has stayed there as the evidence continues not to pour in.

Absolutely wrong. Did you do your own investigation? Did you go to Arlington, Pomeroo? If not, will you admit you're talking out of your ass (rhetorical question).

Sorry, you've been caught lying again.

Minimize the witnesses as much as you want- you don't change the fact that all those in a position to see, saw the NOC flightpath. You like to claim that CIT manipulated the witnesses- but post no evidence. You haven't even watched the video you're criticizing, but continue to call yourself a 'rationalist'. Everyone's imperfect, but it's fascinating from a psychological point of view to see someone who is completely incapable of seeing their own hypocrisy.

The low-IQ cretins of the CIT define "in a position to see" as "being susceptible to verbal coercion." We have no idea what the tiny handful of cherry-picked witnesses actually think of the plane's flight path. What we KNOW is that they insist the plane crashed into the Pentagon. When you liars are prepared to interview one of your witnesses in the presence of a rationalist, let us know.

 

[pomeroo]

You should not believe any of it because it is all speculation, just as your speculation about specific aspects of planning shouldn't be believed.


Again, if they needed to destroy targets that could only be destroyed at a precise angle. Another reason could be to add verisimilitude to the psy-op by faking interaction with physical objects (ie the light poles).

Indeed- thus the sequestering of the 911 calls and the introduction of the second plane story.

No that section of road was controlled immediately after the explosion by the FBI.

Indeed that's possible. Ever heard of Sibel Edmonds?
It is, however, not necessary. "Massive" conspiracies have existed for years- e.g. the Manhattan Project, MKULTRA, Operation Gladio, CIA operations in Guatemala, Iran, Cuba, Indochina, etc. People in such conspiracies choose not to speak in order to avoid punishment (ie they know they have committed a crime and simply don't want any possible punishment), they believe what they are doing is 'right' or for the good of humanity/ country, etc.

Not in our current society. You may want to read about 'conspiratorial' conditions of Soviet Russia and/or Communist Poland. Further resources at:
ponerology.com.

Hey, liar, what has the oh-so-chatty Sibel Edmonds ever said that is remotely helpful to your deranged fantasy?