Flight 77 flight path

[dtugg]

I put my ´faith´ into people who were actually there that day with no axe to grind who were in a position to describe the plane´s approach. Especially if they corraborate from various positions.
This testimony is uncontaminated from ordinary people. That´s why I have ´faith´ in it.

Of course, you only have faith in the parts that you want to hear. Every one of them says that the plane hit the Pentagon? Well, that just means that they were fooled by the grandest magic trick of all time.

 

[BigAl]

I have no problem discussing witnesses who claim to have seen an impact.
I´m trying to discern how NOC coupled with an impact are physically possible.
They aren´t.

Some witnesses report seeing things that are inconsistent with the mass of eyewitnesses and all the physical evidence. They can be ignored.

Unless you are a twoofer.

 

[mudlark]

Oops! You have not released all the recorded footage.

Fail.

Really? Where is the quote?


Of course the notion that they manipulated the video footage or the witnesses themselves to place the plane on the north side is sheer lunacy since most of them illustrated the flight path as well.

But that is the beauty of firsthand eyewitness evidence. It is 100% verifiable with the witness directly. Since none of the witnesses have spoken out against CIT we know for a fact that their testimony was presented accurately.

But CIT has already released the interviews in long form in their supplemental presentations:

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/morevideos.html

You'll see that they are quite long and extremely thorough.

If you don't believe CIT reported the accounts accurately, call the witnesses yourself and prove it.

Either way please provide a quote of this alleged "promise" by CIT or admit that you have been lying about this.

 

[WildCat]

I have no problem discussing witnesses who claim to have seen an impact.
I´m trying to discern how NOC coupled with an impact are physically possible.
They aren´t.

But it didn't go NoC...

 

[mudlark]

Some witnesses report seeing things that are inconsistent with the mass of eyewitnesses and all the physical evidence. They can be ignored.

Unless you are a twoofer.

Who are the ´mass of witnesses´? And exactly what do they contradict?
They can be ignored?
Now THAT should be saved on a screen shot.

 

[bje]

I have no problem discussing witnesses who claim to have seen an impact.
I´m trying to discern how NOC coupled with an impact are physically possible.
They aren´t.

No one witnessed NOC or a flyover.

 

[TexasJack]

DNA mudlark, DNA. How did it get there? How did all the debris get there? This is your legitimate questions? You pick the laughing stock of the truth movement for your legitimate questions? This is comedy gold.

 

[BigAl]

But that is the beauty of firsthand eyewitness evidence. It is 100% verifiable with the witness directly. Since none of the witnesses have spoken out against CIT we know for a fact that their testimony was presented accurately.

The testimony of eyewitness is not particularly "beautiful". Each statement has to be considered in the context of all the statements and all the physical evidence. In any fast-moving unprecedented event, some people will get someting wrong.

We have about 150 people that describe things consistent with the physical evidence. The people that say things that are not consistent with the physical evidence can and should be ignored.

 

[mudlark]

Of course, you only have faith in the parts that you want to hear. Every one of them says that the plane hit the Pentagon? Well, that just means that they were fooled by the grandest magic trick of all time.

That argument doesn´t explain away the testimony. Every one of them had a view of the alleged impact zone? No.Could they have seen the plane NOC AND an impact? No.

 

[beachnut]

So let´s ignore the verified recorded testimony in question and jump to the speculatory discussion? Noted.

For you DNA is speculation as you wave your hands and dismiss real evidence for witness statements made years after the event. Good for you taking hearsay and faulty investigation techniques over reality and hard evidence.

For you the FDR is speculation, as you point to the implied no theory lies of Balsamo and his failed pilot web site with 11.2G failed math still posted.

Tell us all how the DNA for flight 77 passengers was found in the Pentagon and all you have to do to refute it is wave your hands and puke delusions from the idiot investigation team.

Do do a crime because DNA is evidence, and your posts are based on hearsay, faulty investigation techniques and lies. 8 years of failure.

 

[The Big Dog]

Really? Where is the quote?


Of course the notion that they manipulated the video footage or the witnesses themselves to place the plane on the north side is sheer lunacy since most of them illustrated the flight path as well.

But that is the beauty of firsthand eyewitness evidence. It is 100% verifiable with the witness directly. Since none of the witnesses have spoken out against CIT we know for a fact that their testimony was presented accurately.

But CIT has already released the interviews in long form in their supplemental presentations:

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/morevideos.html

You'll see that they are quite long and extremely thorough.

QUOTE]

So you are saying that they won't release the unedited tapes? Interesting. Very interesting. What are they hiding?

 

[Edx]

So you are saying that they won't release the unedited tapes? Interesting. Very interesting. What are they hiding?

The word you're loooking for is unsurprising.

 

[mudlark]

The testimony of eyewitness is not particularly "beautiful". Each statement has to be considered in the context of all the statements and all the physical evidence. In any fast-moving unprecedented event, some people will get someting wrong.

We have about 150 people that describe things consistent with the physical evidence. The people that say things that are not consistent with the physical evidence can and should be ignored.

150 southside witnesses?
150 impact witnesses?
You´ll have to expand on that breaking headline.
Were these ´150´ in a better or even equal position than the witnesses I have mentioned? More importantly are they corraborative?

 

[Edx]

Really Craig, are you that desperate for attention? .

I dont believe Mud is Craig, since Craig and Aldo are both disgusting trolls, Mud doesnt seem to fit their way of arguing, yet.

 

[dtugg]

That argument doesn´t explain away the testimony. Every one of them had a view of the alleged impact zone? No.Could they have seen the plane NOC AND an impact? No.

Stop playing games, CITiot. I'm not trying to explain away any "testimony." I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy. You say you have faith in people that were there. But you only have faith in them when they say something that you want to hear. Everything else can be hand waved away. It's hilarious, in a me laughing in your face sort of way.

 

[beachnut]

That argument doesn´t explain away the testimony. Every one of them had a view of the alleged impact zone? No.Could they have seen the plane NOC AND an impact? No.

Explain in detail. And please present the reason the FDR is wrong?

Then please debunk all these witnesses you ignore out of ignorace.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.

2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

3 took photographs of the aftermath.

Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."

And of course,

0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.​

Then please debunk the DNA which you ignore out of ignorace.

Then please debunk the FDR which you ignore out of ignorace.

 

[twinstead]

150 southside witnesses?
150 impact witnesses?
You´ll have to expand on that breaking headline.
Were these ´150´ in a better or even equal position than the witnesses I have mentioned? More importantly are they corraborative?

How many witnesses do you have of a flyover of the Pentagon?

 

[Edx]

in relation to the wall. He saw a bigass plane heading for him for God´s sake!

Do you actually think this guy had time to find his bearings in a 1-2 second timeframe while running for his life?
Weak.

VERY FUNNY MUD..... I bet you dont understand why though.

 

[BigAl]

150 southside witnesses?
150 impact witnesses?
You´ll have to expand on that breaking headline.
Were these ´150´ in a better or even equal position than the witnesses I have mentioned? More importantly are they corraborative?

How many "eyewitnesses" do you have? What do they say that is consistent with the physical evidence?

Here's what I have handy. I assume there is some overlap but so what?

105 eyewitnesses http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/PentWitnesses.xls

Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11_
150 interviews with participants and eye-witnesses

 

[mudlark]

So you are saying that they won't release the unedited tapes? Interesting. Very interesting. What are they hiding?

I´ve an idea.
Why don´t you go and ask the witnesses yourself?
Ask them if there was any important deleted footage that actually proves that what they MEANT to say wasn´t portrayed by the editting.
Is that what you´re saying?
I could also ask the ´what are they hiding´ question to the severe lack of documented evidence available from the scene, the withheld video tapes and sequestered 911 calls.
But I won´t.