CIT Presents Their Exhaustive Witness List - Yep, Still No Flyover Witness

[cyclonic]

I can't take craig ranke seriously, the first time i saw him he just reminded me of this old movie.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0002NY8VW.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

 

[Ozric]

Oh man this is a hilarious thread.

Ce, UnLoved ReBel is trying to say (not very clealy) that Paik places the plane SOC, when in fact, he places the plane over the Navy Annex (a detail just as fatal to the official story btw) and trys to make the angle fit for the plane to impact.

He could not actually see the Citgo, but if you extend the exact path he drew on the satellite image from south of Coumbia Pike to over the Navy Annex, the plane flys north of the Citgo.

Thanks for proving the OP. Some people are susceptible to these stupid memes and provide a no response response like the one above in order to relieve their cognitive dissonance. Since you have no technical ability and cannot contribute anything to the discussion, tell us why you are susceptible to these riduclous ideas when the vast majority of the population is not.

Don't you get it- Caustic Logic was owned!

He had no idea what he was talking about.

He even lamely admits that he "didn't look into it that deeply" when Craig grills him on witness POV.

Hear Craig owning Caustic Logic in debate.

 

[dtugg]

Hey Dom!

 

[apathoid]

He could not actually see the Citgo, but if you extend the exact path he drew on the satellite image from south of Coumbia Pike to over the Navy Annex, the plane flys north of the Citgo.

It does not do that, it goes smack dab over the middle of the Citgo. I just stitched that image into Google Earth and checked because I was skeptical of your claims.

Ed is clearly pointing out the official flight path(SoC) here.

 

[Baylor]

Oh man this is a hilarious thread.

Ce, UnLoved ReBel is trying to say (not very clealy) that Paik places the plane SOC, when in fact, he places the plane over the Navy Annex (a detail just as fatal to the official story btw) and trys to make the angle fit for the plane to impact.

He could not actually see the Citgo, but if you extend the exact path he drew on the satellite image from south of Coumbia Pike to over the Navy Annex, the plane flys north of the Citgo.

That's your "North of Citgo" evidence? A flight path that doesn't show the plane north of citgo? It's kinda like witnesses saying they saw the plane hit the pentagon as "evidence" the plane didn't hit the pentagon.

Don't you get- Caustic Logic was owned!

He had no idea what he was talking about.

He even lamely admits that he "didn't look into it that deeply" when Craig grills him on witness POV.

Hear Craig owning Caustic Logic in debate.

Perhaps you would like to comment on his evidence rather than post childish comments.

 

[Drs_Res]

Here is a question I never see in any of the CIT threads.
Why would you give an aerial photo to people to draw a flight path on?

They were obviously not seeing the plane from an aerial POV. Having people draw lines on a photo that shows a POV they did not have at the time is bound to introduce some errors. They would need to make estimates of where they thought the plane would be and could be off by quite a bit.

 

[apathoid]

Here is a question I never see in any of the CIT threads.
Why would you give an aerial photo to people to draw a flight path on?

They were obviously not seeing the plane from an aerial POV. Having people draw lines on a photo that shows a POV they did not have at the time is bound to introduce some errors. They would need to make estimates of where they thought the plane would be and could be off by quite a bit.

This should clear things right up:

Funny thing is: thats Ed Paik in the bottom right corner and he's pointing clearly south of the Citgo**.

**when you pinpoint exactly where it is that he's standing in Google Earth

 

[ElMondoHummus]

This has gotten ridiculous enough. Let's remember the good analysis Ryan Mackey did about believing that the CIT findings have any traction:

So let me see if I've got it straight:

According to the Citzen Investigation Team, the Government or whomever wanted to fool the world into thinking American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, along a certain heading that took it through several light poles and low over the freeway just prior to impact.

To do this, They executed the following:

• They flew an aircraft over the Pentagon
• The aircraft traveled along a different heading entirely, on the opposite side of a visible landmark (viz. the Citgo station)
• The aircraft passed nowhere near the light poles in question
• The light poles were sabotaged anyway, in some completely different fashion than aircraft impact
• One light pole was staged to penetrate the windshield of a car, in traffic, again despite the actual aircraft not passing anywhere near overhead
• A large amount of explosives was detonated as the aircraft passed by
• The aircraft then flew away over the Pentagon, where it was allegedly sighted by at least one individual
• The explosion or whatever demolition carried out at the Pentagon left a hole far too small to have been caused by AA 77
• A readable flight data recorder (FDR) was planted (along with an insufficient amount of aircraft debris) that allegedly conflicts with both Their false story and the track of the actual aircraft

And, finally,

• The aircraft in question was deliberately painted so as to not even resemble an American Airlines jetliner.

I am reasonably certain that the above is the stupidest hypothesis ever conceived for any purpose, including parody, intentional humor, or even stress tests of human perception in psychological experiments.

In the future, I plan to take no notice whatsoever of the Citizens Investigation Team, other than to link back to this post. From here, there is simply no return. I deeply pity the minds that are snared by such utter madness.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

And while we're considering Mackey's demonstration of what the ultimate conclusion is to draw from CIT's beliefs, let's also consider shuttering any CIT/NOC/FOS discussion regarding FL77 and the Pentagon. That's been discussed so many times already that I'll bet anything else anyone comes up with will merely repeat what has already been posted, so why not just read already composed posts?

 

[PB&J]

Here is a question I never see in any of the CIT threads.
Why would you give an aerial photo to people to draw a flight path on?

They were obviously not seeing the plane from an aerial POV. Having people draw lines on a photo that shows a POV they did not have at the time is bound to introduce some errors. They would need to make estimates of where they thought the plane would be and could be off by quite a bit.

This is exactly what happened with Kieth Wheelhouse in the CIT videos.

They shoved an overhead satellite photo and told him to give a sketch of the flight path he saw that day (~7 years before the interview). He had to be told which buildings were which and even stated that he didn't know the area that well. CIT ignores this and takes his drawings 100% literal and proceeds to libel this guy to no end.

Taking rough sketches like these from a completely different POV - made so long after the incident no less - so literally is ludicrous to say the least.

 

[Drs_Res]

This is exactly what happened with Kieth Wheelhouse in the CIT videos.

They shoved an overhead satellite photo and told him to give a sketch of the flight path he saw that day (~7 years before the interview). He had to be told which buildings were which and even stated that he didn't know the area that well. CIT ignores this and takes his drawings 100% literal and proceeds to libel this guy to no end.

Taking rough sketches like these from a completely different POV - made so long after the incident no less - so literally is ludicrous to say the least.

I am not going to look at any CIT video until they release the unedited interviews (it will be a long wait) so thanks for that.

And while we're considering Mackey's demonstration of what the ultimate conclusion is to draw from CIT's beliefs, let's also consider shuttering any CIT/NOC/FOS discussion regarding FL77 and the Pentagon. That's been discussed so many times already that I'll bet anything else anyone comes up with will merely repeat what has already been posted, so why not just read already composed posts?

I agree with you and I am sorry for my help in the derailing of this thread. Let's let this die and get back on topic.

 

[Ozric]

It does not do that, it goes smack dab over the middle of the Citgo. I just stitched that image into Google Earth and checked because I was skeptical of your claims.

Yes it clearly does.

Again, here is the original image:

Note that the line passes through the intersection of the right edge of South Orme Street and the left edge of Columbia Pike.

It also passes a little to the north of the center of the side of the Navy Annex facing the Pentagon.

The coordinates on Google Earth for the above intersection and the center of the Pentagon facing side of the Annex are 38.866 -77.071 and 38.868 -77.067, respectively.

The line is clearly north of the Citgo.

Ed is clearly pointing out the official flight path(SoC) here.

No, he is pointing to north in that gif.

In fact, in the exact moment of the video from which that gif was taken, he says the plane almost hit his roof.

His shop is on the north side of Columbia, so its clear that he is not pointing out the official flight path.

But if his own words, gestures, and drawings are still unclear, here is another gif where he points out exactly where the fuselage was:

 

[Baylor]

That places the plane north of the mall entrance. Then it went over the south parking lot right? Was this a 757 or a UFO?

Is that CIT's new "smoking gun release"? "The North of Baltimore Flyover!"

 

[Ozric]

That places the plane north of the mall entrance. Then it went over the south parking lot right?

Yes.

Unlike the official flight path, the north side flight path is both witness compatible and aerodynamically possible.

See:

"9/11: The North Flight Path" Technical Supplement.

and

9/11: Attack on the Pentagon

 

[dtugg]

Yes.

Unlike the official flight path, the north side flight path is both witness compatible and aerodynamically possible.

LOL! Do you guys still say that the plane made a 90 degree turn over the Pentagon (you know so it could fly over the south parking lot like Roosevelt Roberts supposedly claims)?

 

[Ozric]

LOL! Do you guys still say that the plane made a 90 degree turn over the Pentagon?

Neither PFT nor CIT have ever claimed that.

Please source either PFT or CIT saying the plane "made a 90 degree turn over the Pentagon".

Have you even read the paper (hint: its linked in my previous post)?

 

[dtugg]

Did you read the second part of my post, Dom? The complete idiot team has claimed that the plane flew over the south parking lot. How exactly would the plane get from the complete idiot team's NoC path to the south parking lot? Do I need to draw you a picture, Dom?

Cap'n Bob/Turboidiot's garbage paper has been destroyed here already.

 

[Ozric]

How exactly would the plane get from the complete idiot team's NoC path to the south parking lot?

Um... how about by banking?

You're not the brightest, are you "dtugg"?

ETA: Who the hell is "Dom"?

 

[dtugg]

Um... how about by banking?

You're not the brightest, are you "dtugg"?

Wow, this is great!

Since I am such an idiot why don't you draw an image of the plane flying the fantasy NoC path and over the south parking lot. I promise that I will laugh in your face no matter what.

 

[Ozric]

Again, its in the paper and the related presentation.

See:

9/11: The North Flight Path

"9/11: The North Flight Path" Technical Supplement