The north side evidence validated to the point of redundancy

[beachnut]

Of the above light pole witnesses, only Wanda Ramey is quoted as 'seeing' the plane hit the light poles. Another Pentagon police officer, Chad Brooks, is also quoted as 'seeing the plane hit the poles', but clarified in CIT's interview that he didn't actually see this, but saw the poles on the ground after the fact. This is why first hand, in depth interviews are important- until you can produce any that support the SOC claim, all you have is hearsay.

Hearsay. Until you can produce a recorded interview with Hemphill that contradicts his colleage Tony Morin and the ANC/Citgo witnesses, your claims are meaningless.

Morin is a north side witness- in Craig's interview with Morin, he places his position in between wings four and five. While he still claims the plane traveled "parallel to the annex"- its clear that he could not establish exact heading from merely seeing the belly of the plane for a few seconds while in between wings.

Hearsay. Darius Prather says he heard the "plane came up Columbia Pike" as well, because that's what everyone was told happened. You can't even see that part of Columbia Pike from route 27! Until you have independent on-site confirmation of this detail, any quote that has been attributed to Elgas is hearsay.

Hearsay. Record an on-site firsthand testimony if you want Riskus to be counted as a legitimate witness.

Hearsay. Get a on-site firsthand interview with Owens if you want to count her as a legitimate witness.

You are relying on extremely specific details of second-hand general testimony. In the case of Terry Morin's testimony, this produced paradoxes, which is why one needs independent in depth interviews of the witnesses. If you don't have this, all you have is hearsay.
Everyone has yet to address the independently confirmed evidence CIT has uncovered.
I ask again:
If the citgo witnesses were a strange coincidental fluke can you honestly continue to tell yourself that this fluke has been repeated 9 more times from different perspectives while not a single independently confirmed south side account exists?

CIT, Citizens Investigation Team, a group of uneducated amagure so called "investigators", make up failed conclusions and CIT is unable to understand FIRST HAND untainted testimony right after the event. CIT's 13 witnesses debunk their conclusion of stupidity and fantasy. Why do you believe their presented lies? They have real dumb ideas, why can't you figure it out?

People have posted the witnesses who saw 77 hit the Pentagon and hit the Lampposts, CIT lacks the knowledge and expertise to rational conclusion, and the make up lies.

Witnesses in their own words debunk CIT clearly and complete.

Here are some posts proving CIT wrong and I guess you support CIT, so you are double wrong. All will see you and CIT are incapable of making cogent, logical, sound conclusions on this issue.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3908950&postcount=169
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3910321&postcount=264

The biggest con on 9/11, the Pentacon CIT, team of real dumb investigators. Are part of the con?

 

[bje]

TLB's hypocrisy

Hearsay. Until you can produce a recorded interview with Hemphill that contradicts his colleage Tony Morin and the ANC/Citgo witnesses, your claims are meaningless.

Let's talk about hearsay, TLB:

Craig Ranke
"...everyone knows there was very little "wreckage" found and reported."

"There was very little 'wreckage'. It was easily planted and blown from the obliterated construction trailers."

"There is no proof the remains are really from a 757 at all let alone one that hit the building."

TLB:
"But the author of the letter of appreciation was an eyewitness to the wreckage."

Unless you can produce recorded interviews, those claims are meaningless, aren't they, TLB?

 

[jhunter1163]

I thought the thread title read "The north side evidence violated to the point of redundancy". That pretty well describes what's happened to the Truthers in this thread.

 

[Stellafane]

...Hearsay...

Hi TheLoneBedouin. I don't know if you're at all inclined to be receptive to what I have to say. But if you are, I wonder if it might be good to step back a moment an consider the whole picture here.

You claim that 13 witnesses say they saw the plane on the north side of the Pentagon. You apparently feel this is meaningful. I, on the other hand, believe that this claim means one thing and one thing only: that 13 people claim they saw the plane on the north side. Nothing more, nothing less. The reason I say that is because we have at least three possible conclusions to draw from this: (1) The plane was indeed on the north side, (2) the witnesses are mistaken, and (3) the witnesses are lying.

Most of us here would probably accept option #2 as the most likely, because doing so dovetails nicely with all the other things we already know about the Pentagon crash -- all the other witnesses who say they saw the plane on the south side, the debris field, the structural damage, the passenger remains, the light poles, etc. etc. If, however, you believe option #1, suddenly you have a staggering amount of explaining to do. For instance, you have to explain why the vast majority of witnesses saw the plane on the other side. Are they all mistaken or lying? If so, why was it that only this tiny minority got it right? If the plane flew over the building, what caused the damage? And how come nobody saw whatever it was come flying in? How did all the airplane pieces and passenger remains get strewn about instantly, while the Pentagon was damaged in a way perfectly consistent with an airliner crash (according to the vast majority of experts). If the plane flew over, what happened to it and the passengers? And why would anyone hatch this convoluted and seemingly insane scheme, flying an airliner over the Pentagon while crashing into it with something else, then flying the plane away without a single person noticing it?

These are the questions you have to address -- every single one of them --to make your claim at all meaningful. Until you do, then you have nothing at all.

Pomeroo mentioned the Titanic disaster as an example of how eyewitness testimony can sometimes be less than perfect. You seem to have rejected the analog (unfortunately, in my view) but here's another: Suppose I set out to discover the square root of 9. I ask 500 people. Of this group, 487 answer "3" and the remaining 13 say "4." If I were then to claim this means that the square root of 9 is 4, you'd probably think I was nuts. Because not only am I ignoring the huge majority, I'm also dismissing all the math textbooks, all the mathematicians in history, every working calculator and computer in the world, and so on -- based on what these 13 people think. And yet, what you propose by claiming that your 13 witnesses calls into question the generally accepted story of what happened on 9/11 is in my opinion every bit as implausible.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

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.

****PLEASE STOP LYING*****

Employees from the airline who had flown on flight 77 often were brought to the scene that day to confirm not just that it was an American Airlines plane, but it was flight 77. The irony being that one of the flight attendants who examined the debris and helped determine that it was flight 77 is a twoofer. Obviously she isn't one of the idiot twoofers who thinks flight 77 didn't hit the pentagon because she was there herself to see first hand though.

****PLEASE STOP LYING******

 

[Bobert]

The mind of Ranke has got to be the sickest of minds.
Here you have a grown man going on and on about rock solid, smoking gun evidence who releases YET ANOTHER video.
Now does he care about finally solving the biggest case within the US of Mass Murder?
Does he rush out to the nearest media outlet or court?
NOOOOOOOOOOO
He whines and cries over at LCF about how no one is taking him serisously

What's unfortunate is when spin and lies like Arabesque is currently spewing about us at blogger are propped up and protected at such an influential site while serious dedicated researchers like us are dismissed, marginalized, and silenced
It's a serious problem that should not be ignored.

Craig is sick on many levels.

 

[Confuseling]

So.

Light poles taken down at night, and no one noticed them.

Light poles. Along a road. At night.

LIGHT poles. Road. Night.

LIGHT POLE.

Let's try it larger, and in red: LIGHT POLE

Please tell me I don't have to explain farther?

They are actually quite heavy.

 

[pomeroo]

The question about the Titantic survivors who misremembered the most traumatic event of their lives has crushed the liars flat. They have nothing to say about an analogy that reduces their stupid, pernicious fantasy to ashes.

Instead of letting them stumble away, only to return with the same mindless idiocy, let's keep reminding them that the CIT sank with the Titanic.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Almost none of those statements were "second-hand" as you put it. With the exception of the interview with Riskus (which was posted with his permission), all of my quotes were from written statements made by witnesses shortly after the event to describe what they experienced in detail. It's not like they were quoted by reporters or anything. It's what they reported in a narrative they wrote themselves.

The statements are unconfirmed, general reports that don't deal with specific details such as exact heading, speed, etc. They are therefore hearsay.
Upon further investigation, however, it appears that even these unconfirmed accounts do not support the official story.

At approximately 9:45am I entered the old office of my friend Gary Ramos', directly adjacent to the executive director. This office, with two nice windows and a great view of the monuments, the Capitol and the Pentagon was "good digs" by any Pentagon standard. Immediately, the large silver cylinder of an aircraft appeared in my window, coming over my right shoulder as I faced the Westside of the Pentagon directly towards the heliport. The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus, seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike - an Arlington road leading to Pentagon.

Without information on Hemphill's position, the quote says little. He says he had a "great view of the capital" which means he would be more to the North side of the Annex. If the plane came over his right shoulder this would fit with "seeming to come directly over the annex". While these details need to be further delineated in an interview, his claim may support the NOC path but definitely contradicts the SOC path.

"I heard a rumble, looked out my driver's side window and realized that I was looking at the nose of an airplane coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there -- very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station that I never know was there."

Penny says she sees the plane flying over Columbia pike coming straight at her on route 27 as she turns to the left. Look on a map, this part of Columbia curves North of the Citgo gas station and intersects with route 27. Elgas is a NOC witness!

"... I saw the plane hit the building. It did not hit the ground first... It did not hit the roof first... It did dead center on the side... I was close enough (about 100 ft or so) that I could see the "American Airlines" logo on the tail as it headed towards the building... The plane looked like it was coming in about where you have the "MAX APPROACH" on that picture... I was at about where the "E" in "ANGLE OF CAMERA" is written when the plane hit... It was not completely level, but it was not going straight down, kind of like it was landing with no gear down... It knocked over a few light poles on it's way... "

This quote requires you to take "agent fescado's" word that he interviewed Riskus, but it doesn't say anything anyway. This quote says absolutely nothing about the approach of the plane, clearly Riskus would pick an angle closer to the damage path, just as Legasse deduced a 'yaw' in the last moments before the impact. It says nothing about the direction the plane came from.

"We stopped at a Citgo station that we found out was military personal only, but my daughter got them to let us pump $5 worth of gas. We left the station to get back on 395 north, but we missed the on ramp, so we drove back around the loop to try again. When we rounded the corner to head back to the highway we heard a sound like a missile and the plane flew in front of us by about 200 ft at ground level. I turned my head to the right and saw it crash into the Pentagon about 200 yards away."

First, this isn't even a witness since he doesn't list a last name and is effectively anonymous. If he is where you say he is, "in front of us" could be either NOC or SOC. We don't have enough details to determine which one he saw.

LMAO, after making such a big deal about "second-hand" testimony that really isn't second-hand, you now want us to take Craig's word for it and suppose that his characterization of what Morin told him is not hearsay??

Craig is an independent citizen investigator who asked specific questions to Morin regarding the flight path and making very specific claims in regards to his answers. You can deny what he is stating but obviously if he is misrepresenting what Morin told him that would put him in a very vulnerable position with all the people out there looking to discredit him.
Regardless the bottom line is that even without Morin and Stephens, you are looking at 11 confirmed independent first hand accounts definitively supporting the north side claim while you have provided ZERO independent confirmed first hand accounts that definitively support a south side flight path.
Furthermore you are forgetting the obvious context of the evidence you are trying (but failing) to refute.
If you hypothetically assume for the moment that the north side witnesses are correct then the undeniable implications are a military deception involving a significant amount of people who were willing to deceive.
That means that any and ALL previously published witnesses are suspect and could potentially be involved in the deception.
In light of this fact you STILL can not provide near enough testimony to put a dent in the north side evidence that has now been clearly validated to the point of redundancy. EVEN IF I accept all of your quotes as 100% valid and accurate evidence.
Have you even viewed the evidence presented in the OP?
How do you explain the detailed accounts of the ANC workers when considering the official flight path?

 

[WildCat]

How do you explain the fact that every single one of your witnesses says that Flight 77 hit the building?

And what about that 130 mph claim of yours?

 

[Reheat]

Penny says she sees the plane flying over Columbia pike coming straight at her on route 27 as she turns to the left. Look on a map, this part of Columbia curves North of the Citgo gas station and intersects with route 27. Elgas is a NOC witness!

Sure she is, you freakin liar! There's two segments of Columbia Pike that run perpendicular to that highway. Here's more of what she says:

The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again -- only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring. At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building. It was here that I closed my eyes for a moment and when I looked back, the entire area was awash in thick black smoke.

 

[X]

First, this isn't even a witness since he doesn't list a last name and is effectively anonymous.

Wow. Just wow.

The only approprate response is incredulity, followed by laughter.

 

[Corsair 115]

TLB,
Now that this video is out when will you be taking your evidence to a court?

Of course not. The courts are all in on it. In fact, everyone else but them is in on it!

 

[Mr.Herbert]

Originally Posted by TheLoneBedouin
Penny says she sees the plane flying over Columbia pike coming straight at her on route 27 as she turns to the left. Look on a map, this part of Columbia curves North of the Citgo gas station and intersects with route 27. Elgas is a NOC witness!

Sure she is, you freakin liar! There's two segments of Columbia Pike that run perpendicular to that highway. Here's the rest of what she says:

Originally Posted by Penny Elgas
The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again -- only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring. At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building. It was here that I closed my eyes for a moment and when I looked back, the entire area was awash in thick black smoke.

Mr. Lone Bedouin.... After reading Elgas's statement, all I have to say is:

 

[pomeroo]

The statements are unconfirmed, general reports that don't deal with specific details such as exact heading, speed, etc. They are therefore hearsay.
Upon further investigation, however, it appears that even these unconfirmed accounts do not support the official story.

Without information on Hemphill's position, the quote says little. He says he had a "great view of the capital" which means he would be more to the North side of the Annex. If the plane came over his right shoulder this would fit with "seeming to come directly over the annex". While these details need to be further delineated in an interview, his claim may support the NOC path but definitely contradicts the SOC path.

Penny says she sees the plane flying over Columbia pike coming straight at her on route 27 as she turns to the left. Look on a map, this part of Columbia curves North of the Citgo gas station and intersects with route 27. Elgas is a NOC witness!

This quote requires you to take "agent fescado's" word that he interviewed Riskus, but it doesn't say anything anyway. This quote says absolutely nothing about the approach of the plane, clearly Riskus would pick an angle closer to the damage path, just as Legasse deduced a 'yaw' in the last moments before the impact. It says nothing about the direction the plane came from.

First, this isn't even a witness since he doesn't list a last name and is effectively anonymous. If he is where you say he is, "in front of us" could be either NOC or SOC. We don't have enough details to determine which one he saw.

Craig is an independent citizen investigator who asked specific questions to Morin regarding the flight path and making very specific claims in regards to his answers. You can deny what he is stating but obviously if he is misrepresenting what Morin told him that would put him in a very vulnerable position with all the people out there looking to discredit him.
Regardless the bottom line is that even without Morin and Stephens, you are looking at 11 confirmed independent first hand accounts definitively supporting the north side claim while you have provided ZERO independent confirmed first hand accounts that definitively support a south side flight path.
Furthermore you are forgetting the obvious context of the evidence you are trying (but failing) to refute.
If you hypothetically assume for the moment that the north side witnesses are correct then the undeniable implications are a military deception involving a significant amount of people who were willing to deceive.
That means that any and ALL previously published witnesses are suspect and could potentially be involved in the deception.
In light of this fact you STILL can not provide near enough testimony to put a dent in the north side evidence that has now been clearly validated to the point of redundancy. EVEN IF I accept all of your quotes as 100% valid and accurate evidence.
Have you even viewed the evidence presented in the OP?
How do you explain the detailed accounts of the ANC workers when considering the official flight path?
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/ancgif2.gif

Percentage of witnesses who saw a plane hit the Pentagon: 100

Percentage of witnesses who saw a plane head toward toward the Pentagon, then pull up at the last moment: 0

 

[WildCat]

In this video TC329 and TLB are represented by the 2 men, while the JREF debunkers are represented by the hot chick. Let's see what happens!

 

[WildCat]

Uh-oh, here comes Rob Balsamo!

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Sure she is, you freakin liar! There's two segments of Columbia Pike that run perpendicular to that highway.

Actually there's only one. Columbia splits into two lanes, both of which curve north of the Citgo, and merge again before intersecting route 27.
Look at the map.

And what about that 130 mph claim of yours?

Of course you can't compute exact speed from witness accounts- the point is they all say the plane was going significantly slower than reported by the NTSB.
I see no one has answered my question so I'll ask it again:

In light of this fact you STILL can not provide near enough testimony to put a dent in the north side evidence that has now been clearly validated to the point of redundancy. EVEN IF I accept all of your quotes as 100% valid and accurate evidence.
Have you even viewed the evidence presented in the OP?
How do you explain the detailed accounts of the ANC workers when considering the official flight path?

Edited by jmercer: 

Hotlink removed, link supplied

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/ancgif2.gif

Since there is no way to determine if the permission of the people to display the image was gained, I have removed the hotlink and replaced it with a regular link. If proof is provided, we will return things to their previous state.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer

 

[tsig]

Actually there's only one. Columbia splits into two lanes, both of which curve north of the Citgo, and merge again before intersecting route 27.
Look at the map.

Of course you can't compute exact speed from witness accounts- the point is they all say the plane was going significantly slower than reported by the NTSB.
I see no one has answered my question so I'll ask it again:

In light of this fact you STILL can not provide near enough testimony to put a dent in the north side evidence that has now been clearly validated to the point of redundancy. EVEN IF I accept all of your quotes as 100% valid and accurate evidence.
Have you even viewed the evidence presented in the OP?
How do you explain the detailed accounts of the ANC workers when considering the official flight path?
[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/ancgif2.gif[/qimg]

Do these people know you are showing their faces?

 

[LashL]

<blather>

The stupid - it burns!



ETA:

And as SlightlyAboveApr said so well in another thread:

Guys, guys, guys..........CIT has nothing to do with 9-11 or conspiracies. It's about them. This "new" information isn't (as we all know).

It's about getting attention and stroking their own egos. Period.

If they claim some ridiculous nonsense, let it go. There is no reason to refute/challenge them. The book is closed on this chapter of history, except to CIT and people who can't help but engage them. The whole purpose of the latest CIT propaganda isn't about winning over new 'converts'. It's about eliciting a reaction from us.

We are the fuel these clowns live on. Deprive them of fuel and the nonsense will stop. Well, in all honesty, they will never go away but, they will be contained within the box of woo, where they belong.

Again, nobody cares what CIT has to say. Not the authorities, not the press, not the general, all around public. Only we do. By continuously feeding them the attention they so (apparently) desperately desire, we ensure they will continue to seek our attention.

I can see boiling their assertions down to the Irreducible Delusion and pointing out the flaw(s) for those that might be new to the discussion, but other than that…..why bother?

It’s been (almost) seven years guys. The better half of a decade. There is nothing new to see here. By responding to these clowns we give those on the sideline the appearance there might be something to pay attention to.

Bottom line: point out the Irreducible Delusion and move on. Those that are smart enough to figure out what is woo and what isn’t will see them for what they are. Those that are too stupid (sorry, no nice way to say that) to recognize woo can’t and wont be saved.

He or she is right. These lunatics do not deserve our attention, despite the best efforts of their most recent water carriers/sockpuppets.