8 out of 8 at Citgo station

[nicepants]

You didn't answer my question, 16.5.

btw, Ranke credits Caustic Logic as the only one of their critics who was willing to debate one on one.

Craig & Aldo don't debate....craig uses words & phrases he doesn't understand, apparently to try to sound smart (anyone remember "argument from incredjooly"?), and Aldo just goes with personal attacks.

Not that it matters...with all of this supposed "proof", the only place they should be doing any debating is a courtroom....but they get quite defensive when asked why they aren't doing so.

Craig & Aldo are frauds....if they were legit, they would not have a problem publishing a list of the prosecutors, attorneys, law enforcement agencies, etc that they've contacted with this "smoking gun" evidence. Since they refuse to provide that we can only assume that they haven't done squat, other than try to sell dvds and argue with people on the internet.

 

[tj15]

look at the leafy substance at the bottom of the frame in this photo

[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/car3.jpg[/qimg]

now look at the top of the crown of the tree to the left. Notice the brown brances on top?
[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/bombing15.jpg[/qimg]

Interesting! Thanks for the pics.

 

[A W Smith]

#17

@smith: Go and own Ranke. They are perfectly capable of defending themselves. I'm just providing information that otherwise would be completely buried inside the dust you sorry excuses for debunkers produce.

I already did when he was here back in 07 babe.. Wassamater hon? Shrinking violet? He's been debunked all over the place. Mission accomplished.


Here's a better photo showing tree leaves all over the highway.

 

[tj15]

I already did when he was here back in 07 babe.. Wassamater hon? Shrinking violet? He's been debunked all over the place. Mission accomplished.


Here's a better photo showing tree leaves all over the highway.

[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/Pentagon_Lamppost_L.jpg[/qimg]

Not that it really matters, but couldn't the leaves have already been there before the plane hit? In that last picture, the leaves look like they are pretty well smashed into the road (indicating that they have been run over many times).

Another thing about the last picture, there seem to be leaves bunched up against the pole that was stuck in England's cab (correct me if I'm wrong about how the pole was stuck inside England's cab). England (with help) pulled the pole out soon after the plane passed. I'm guessing the leaves were pushed up against the light pole when the pole was slid on the ground toward the leaves.

I think I'm looking at a bunch of nothing though...

 

[The Big Dog]

#17

@smith: Go and own Ranke. They are perfectly capable of defending themselves. I'm just providing information that otherwise would be completely buried inside the dust you sorry excuses for debunkers produce.

Own Shaky Craig? Do you realize that their asinine theory comes predebunked? Their own witnesses contradict one another, and they all contradict CIT's ridiculous theory that the plane "flew up Columbia boulevard, flew parallel to the edge of the Annex, then banked north of CITGO while descending below the level of the trees, pulled out of the bank, arrested the descent, pulled up and over the Pentagon at the impact site, circled above the Pentagon, and exited over the South parking lot."

Can a brother get a laughing dog?

Silly No Planers are silly.

 

[carlitos]

People saw the plane. People were on the plane. People hijacked the plane. CIT are pathetic nutters. Pay them no mind.

 

[911kongen]

Anybody know about the black boxes in the planes that hit WTC? Did they not find any piece of it?

 

[tj15]

I take back my questions on my last post... I think the 3rd picture just looks like the leaves are smashed into the road because it is not as good a quality as the first two pictures of the leaves.

 

[carlitos]

911kongen, I appreciate what you are doing here, but there are a lot more efficient ways of finding the info you need. For nearly every topic, you can just type a few key words into the 9/11 power debunker.

I just typed "black box 175" into that search engine and the second result pointed me here to 911myths. Next time try it yourself.

 

[Whiplash]

What makes no sense about these claims is, they give so much weight to people who claim to see it on a different flight path. But as far as I know, those same people say the plane hit the pentagon.

The whole point of the other flight path was part of proving that a plane didn't hit the pentagon, was it not? Otherwise, what's the freaking point?

So, it's good enough that these people say they saw it go "north of the citgo" or whatever. But their saying it hit the pentagon after? No, we can't trust that. They are only being truthful in the first part?

 

[A W Smith]

What makes no sense about these claims is, they give so much weight to people who claim to see it on a different flight path. But as far as I know, those same people say the plane hit the pentagon.

The whole point of the other flight path was part of proving that a plane didn't hit the pentagon, was it not? Otherwise, what's the freaking point?

So, it's good enough that these people say they saw it go "north of the citgo" or whatever. But their saying it hit the pentagon after? No, we can't trust that. They are only being truthful in the first part?

All paths lead to.....

 

[Whiplash]

I thought the idea was the plane was north of the citgo, and then pulled up at the last minute in some crazy and impossible aerodynamic maneuver. If they agree still the plane hit the Pentagon, I don't see what difference it makes whether some saw it north or south of the Citgo.

 

[carlitos]

The term "irreducible delusion" comes to mind.

Speaking of fame-seekers, I just noticed that the "Journal of 9/11 Studes" could be acronymed as JONES. Is that a coincidence, that the cold fusion nut has that name?

 

[Childlike Empress]

What makes no sense about these claims is, they give so much weight to people who claim to see it on a different flight path. But as far as I know, those same people say the plane hit the pentagon.

Most of them were physically not able to see the plane impact from where they were. They merely deduced that the plane hit. Some were approached by CIT later again and admitted that they didn't really see the impact, while standing by the flight path they described.

This is described in the video i've linked, too.

 

[carlitos]

So what?

 

[The Big Dog]

Most of them were physically not able to see the plane impact from where they were. They merely deduced that the plane hit. Some were approached by CIT later again and admitted that they didn't really see the impact, while standing by the flight path they described.

This is described in the video i've linked, too.

Uh, RIIGGGHHHTTTTT. Gee, Boger said he watched the plane hit, and farking Fat Aldo called him a liar.

But, you know what, CI? You know what they would have been able to see? Yeah, the ****ing plane laying on its side in an impossible bank and then pulling up and over the ****ing pentagon.

I am constantly amazed at the sheep these thugs are able to deceive.

 

[beachnut]

Most of them were physically not able to see the plane impact from where they were. They merely deduced that the plane hit. Some were approached by CIT later again and admitted that they didn't really see the impact, while standing by the flight path they described.

This is described in the video i've linked, too.

They deduced correctly. They correctly deduced Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon and CIT are so incredibly stupid they keep saying Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon due to some learning problem; insanity.

CIT have to be the dumbest detectives. What kind of drug abuse leads to this type of insanity? CIT has company, many people are willing to suspend rational thought and adopt the delusions of CIT. You could use CIT delusions to weed out prospective employees.

There is zero evidence to support CIT conclusions. There is tons, literally tons of evidence to support the fact their conclusions are delusions.

No need for further prove of CIT insanity by watching a video clip. CIT have no evidence, they ignore evidence and mangle witness testimony trying to support their moronic delusions. Is that typical drug induced stupidity?

You have nothing that needs debunking. No factual support for CIT lies, no evidence, just talk about nothing but the delusional CIT who make up flight paths based on people who saw Flight 77 on a path that impacted the Pentagon. The flight paths they present as ground tracks are impossible, but the witnesses did see 77 on the real flight path. It is hard to draw the flight path as a ground track from the perspective the people had and interviewing them years later makes CIT idiots when they make conclusions and present the ground tracks as evidence. Super stupid. Are you supporting their delusions, or just posting nonsense for fun so you sneak in the sorry excuse stuff. What is your excuse?

Are your posts weak endorsements for CIT work?

 

[twinstead]

Most of them were physically not able to see the plane impact from where they were. They merely deduced that the plane hit. Some were approached by CIT later again and admitted that they didn't really see the impact, while standing by the flight path they described.

And rational people categorically reject that cop out. No matter what those idiots spin, the evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon--plane parts, DNA, damage to objects, and yes, no matter what those idiots at CIT say, eye-witnesses accounts--support a plane impacting the Pentagon.

I wonder how many witnesses interviewed by CIT still insisted they saw the plane hit the Pentagon, not just 'deduce it', and wound up on the cutting room floor. I wonder what questions they were asked. You said "most of them were physically not able to see the plane impact". Well, most isn't all, even though 'most' is a cop out too. There were some quite able to see it and DID.

 

[nicepants]

Most of them were physically not able to see the plane impact from where they were. They merely deduced that the plane hit. Some were approached by CIT later again and admitted that they didn't really see the impact, while standing by the flight path they described.

Which of the eyewitnesses has abandoned their claim that the plane hit the Pentagon?

ETA: And even if "most" admitted to deducing it, what of those who did see it?

 

[HyJinX]

Most of them were physically not able to see the plane impact from where they were. They merely deduced that the plane hit. Some were approached by CIT later again and admitted that they didn't really see the impact, while standing by the flight path they described.

This is described in the video i've linked, too.

Ok...well...a lot of people DID see the plane impact. This, of course, trumps those who did not.