8 out of 8 at Citgo station

Quick answer for jaydeehess:

Neither Brooks or Lagasse saw the plane rise over the Pentagon either. How is that possible given that I am quite sure they did not suddenly decide to look down and tie their shoes after it passed by them?


I know out of memory that Lagasse indeed stated that he "ducked" and "ended up in his car". That's right there in "NSA" and you as an expert should know this. Why are you misrepresenting his testimony?

If you want me to comment on your other allegations, please provide evidence for the accuracy of them.

@stewieg: Watch the presentation and tell me what the snake oil is you think they are selling.
 
Quick answer for jaydeehess:

I know out of memory that Lagasse indeed stated that he "ducked" and "ended up in his car". That's right there in "NSA" and you as an expert should know this. Why are you misrepresenting his testimony?

If you want me to comment on your other allegations, please provide evidence for the accuracy of them.

@stewieg: Watch the presentation and tell me what the snake oil is you think they are selling.

Not one single person on the planet saw Flight 77 fly over the Pentagon.

Boger states it hit the Pentagon and he watched it and heard it do so. CIT call him a liar. They called the taxi driver an accomplice to murder. They lied about the locations of the lightpoles. They refuse to put up unedited interviews despite saying they would. They edited Paiks pictures to try and show a flightpath that was incorrect.

Game over.
 
The taxi driver implicated himself. The most creepy part of "NSA" are the fifteen minutes about Lloyd, when Craig tries to get him to admit that he and his Taxi were where the photos show him to be, and Lloyd insists that he wasn't there, but claims to have been where the NoC path would require him to be. That's outright surreal.
 
The taxi driver implicated himself. The most creepy part of "NSA" are the fifteen minutes about Lloyd, when Craig tries to get him to admit that he and his Taxi were where the photos show him to be, and Lloyd insists that he wasn't there, but claims to have been where the NoC path would require him to be. That's outright surreal.

Hey champ, a couple of years ago you ripped Cap'n Bobby a new one, and now you are sucking off CIT and PFFT's hind teat? What gives?
 
Hey champ, a couple of years ago you ripped Cap'n Bobby a new one, and now you are sucking off CIT and PFFT's hind teat? What gives?


His exact words were...

What an evasive crap. Why are your actions dependent on what snake oil sellers do?

Why is the forum search full of Loose Change, Alex Jones, Rob Balsamo, Eric Hufschmid, James Fetzer, Richard Gage etc. pp.
 
Read the thread in context. CIT belonged into that list for a while, until it turned out that they are NOT an easy target. Since then, the debunkers refuse to debate and the duhbunkies post spam.

btw, everyone who wants me to answer questions has to first answer my question in #17, the possible answers outlined by Caustic Logic in #77.

edit: took a short look at your posting history. A one issue guy, eh? Trying to smear Aldo as "anti-semitic" in your second post. Charming. Have you been a member of this forum before?
 
Last edited:
Read the thread in context. CIT belonged into that list for a while, until it turned out that they are NOT an easy target. Since then, the debunkers refuse to debate and the duhbunkies post spam.

Do you even read the sort of things Craig and Aldo post? Two of the nastier truthers out there. There is no difference between them and the people you called snake oil salesman. Why, becasue they are selling the same crap!
 
Last edited:
Read the thread in context. CIT belonged into that list for a while, until it turned out that they are NOT an easy target.

Hee hee! Yeah, they are really taking the world by storm, CE!

Anyhow, would you put yourself in the CIT group that is simply convinced by the impossible flight path, or do you consider yourself a hard core ALDO style fan, who thinks that Lloyde England is the lynchpin of the conspiracy, Frank Probst is a liar, every other person who contradicts CIT is in on it... BOGER? LIAR! MORIN? LIAR!

LIARS THE LOT OF THEM! The body parts were dismemebered and frozen in the trucks. Father McGraw is a liar. Airliners can fly over the Pentagon and no one sees it!

Hee hee, nice group of No Planers you are hanging around, CE!
 
If you say so... :rolleyes:

What's the difference between Craig/Aldo and lets say Rob Balsamo? Both believe that the Pentagon was not hit by an AA 757. Both partake in a particularly nasty form of debate. And both have yet to come up with a shred of evidence to support their ideas.
 
#126, champ. Take some time when you're finished watching .mp3s.

Bye!

Thanks, sport, but there ain't no way in hell I am listening to Shaky Craig for 2 1/2 god damn hours.

I mean, for cripes sake, what kind of a navel gazing loser would you have to be to listen to that fraud talk for more time than it took the hijackers to grab four planes, and the two buildings to eventually collapse?
 
What I find amazing is that anyone is paying any attention at all to CIT's NSA. To do so a person has to check their brain in the closet or insure that it is numbed by some mind-altering substance. The example of England was used. After blasting the poor guy over and over convincing him the plane flew over the other overpass (the one Lagasse incorrectly identified), England finally is convinced. Then they blast him for being wrong about that although it was they who convinced him that he was at the wrong place! The insanity never ends....
 
The taxi driver implicated himself. The most creepy part of "NSA" are the fifteen minutes about Lloyd, when Craig tries to get him to admit that he and his Taxi were where the photos show him to be, and Lloyd insists that he wasn't there, but claims to have been where the NoC path would require him to be. That's outright surreal.
CITLies1.jpg

The worse investigators on earth, CIT, interview people years after and find they have no clue where they were. Why photography was invented to refresh the memory.

Verified by RADAR (multiple simultaneous RADAR sites tracking Flight 77) the final path on the FDR, the exact heading you can Google Earth of 61.5 degree, verified by RADALT to be a 16 to 20 feet to hit the lamppost that fell into a car, this car as he drove by the Pentagon. Only a few idiots can mess up Lloyd's story as bad as CIT.


Evidence puts Lloyd where he was on 911, not where he thinks he was 5 years later. CIT brain-dead investigation, if there is ample evidence, they can mess it up to make up stories to match their meth crackhead mentality. All their own witnesses believe Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon but CIT lie and say as they are pointing to the south of the CITGO flight path, that they support the NoC path so 77 was not there; as witnesses say 77 impacted lamppost on the SoC path and impacted the Pentagon.

There is no point to you post as you imply support for idiots who produce the most idiotic conclusions on 911.
 
Good to see you've learned over night what to do with .mp3s. Watching them must be quite boring indeed. There's hope! :D

Actually watching them is fascinating. Craig gets all emotional, and starts shaking, and he is talking about this massive conspiracy while sitting on a couch with his shirt wide open like he is at a Seventies disco.

And poor dumb, fat Aldo sits there mute, troll like, missing any semblance of a neck, with a ridiculous Castro style hat perched on his head, wearing Army style fatigues, while sitting next to a guy wearing a pastel flamenco shirt.

And the tree fort Couch. Oh that wonderful couch. It is hypnotizing.
 
Quick answer for jaydeehess:




I know out of memory that Lagasse indeed stated that he "ducked" and "ended up in his car". That's right there in "NSA" and you as an expert should know this. Why are you misrepresenting his testimony?

If you want me to comment on your other allegations, please provide evidence for the accuracy of them.

.

I was under the impression that you had watched "Pentacon".

Yes, Lagasse did enter his car to get his radio. He says he did that as soon as he saw the plane. So that somewhat negates his ability to precisely indicate where the plane was when he first caught sight of it.
IIRC though, he does state that he watched the fireball rise. I may be incorrect on that though.
However, Brooks is in the location he was parked on 911, in the "Pentacon" ,and the Pentagon is visible in the background. He should have had one of the best seats in the house from which to see the plane rise up and over the building just before the fireball occurs and certainly would have seen it a second or two later as the fireball burned off.
Turcois too was watching the plane go behind the embankment then sees a fireball while still looking in that direction. Yet he too never sees the plane again.

These are but two people who would have had very good views of any large aircraft flying low and fast over the Pentagon. The NEADS radar data shows a fast target heading towards the Pentagon which then disappears from radar and never shows up again. What does show up is a diffuse return that matches where the smoke/dust plume would have been.

Flight 77 took off and was never seen again on the ground at any airport nor have any of its occupants ever been seen or heard from again. On the other hand the DNA of those occupants was located in the wreckage of the Pentagon except for one small child.

The flight data recorder ostensibly from flight 77 was found in the wreckage of the Pentagon and its data indicates that it flew a flight path that would take it into the Pentagon. Warren Stutt decoded the last few incomplete frames of data and the last radar altitude (height above solid ground) that was recorded is 4 feet.

The damage at the Pentagon indicates that a large mass entered the building and broke apart as it destroyed the interior of the building. there was no explosion inside the Pentagon as the approx 100 feet of missing front wall was not in evidence on the lawn in front of that wall.

An explosion did not cave that wall inwards either as we also know that the large generator in front of the Pentagon was moved TOWARDS the building , not away from it.

Furthermore if an explosion had ripped out 100 feet of one wall then it should have done the same to the inner wall. The ground floor of the three 'rings' are all one common space, no separate exterior walls for each ring and that level.

Boger, who watched the plane inbound from his vantage point in the heliport building, says explicitly that he SAW the plane hit the building and heard it tearing apart inside the structure.

He is not alone in explicitly saying that he saw the impact.

No one at all on the ground from any side of the Pentagon, nor on radar, nor the pilot of the Hercules aircraft watching from above saw a fly over.

The majority of witnesses describe the aircraft in such a way as to be consistent with the commonly accepted flight path. This commonly accepted flight path is corroborated by the flight data recorder (despite PfT claims to the contrary) and the path of damage in the Pentagon itself.
 
CE's post 17

And you? What parts of the evidence do you think were made up? Agree with CL?

What are you referring to? CiT's 'evidence'?

Ok let's start with their accusation that Boger is lieing.
Boger states that he saw the plane hit the building. They say he did not solely and only because his saying he did contradicts their flyover theory.
He is backed up by several others who also state explicity that they saw the plane hit, and if a flyover is the supposed alternative then there are absolutly no witnesses from any where at all nor and radar data to support that contention.
 
I was under the impression that you had watched "Pentacon".


And so you thought you could omit what he stated later? To trick me? Or were you "quite sure" that he closely followed what the plane did because YOU haven't watched "NSA" but derive your knowledge of the issue from secondary sources alone? Which one is it?

And I asked you for evidence for your other earlier allegations, not for a lenghty argument from incredulity.

last post: I am refering to more than a dozen witnesses who were contacted by CIT after being on official record as witnesses, invited on scene and asked to clarify the statements they made in 2001. They independently and unanimously describe a flight path so different from the official one, that a plane approaching on this path couldn't cause the physical damage. They were (if they aren't acting) not aware of the implications of what they had seen, they simply told their story.

That's the problem and that's the evidence: corroborated witness testimony. If you have a better theory than "flyover" to explain the evidence, go ahead.

If you don't accept the evidence, you must explain it away. Caustic Logic says that the witnesses are in on it. Remember, most of them were on official record since 2001.

So, what's your opinion?

1) The witnesses are all mistaken in the same bizarre way.
2) They are actors payed by CIT to pose as the real on record witnesses.
3) They are part of a disinfo operation that fooled CIT.
4) They honestly and accurately describe what they have witnessed.
 
Last edited:
And so you thought you could omit what he stated later? To trick me? Or were you "quite sure" that he closely followed what the plane did because YOU haven't watched "NSA" but derive your knowledge of the issue from secondary sources alone? Which one is it?

And I asked you for evidence for your other earlier allegations, not for a lenghty argument from incredulity.

last post: I am refering to more than a dozen witnesses who were contacted by CIT after being on official record as witnesses, invited on scene and asked to clarify the statements they made in 2001. They independently and unanimously describe a flight path so different from the official one, that a plane approaching on this path couldn't cause the physical damage. They were (if they aren't acting) not aware of the implications of what they had seen, they simply told their story.

That's the problem and that's the evidence: corroborated witness testimony. If you have a better theory than "flyover" to explain the evidence, go ahead.

If you don't accept the evidence, you must explain it away. Caustic Logic says that the witnesses are in on it. Remember, most of them were on official record since 2001.

So, what's your opinion?

1) The witnesses are all mistaken in the same bizarre way.
2) They are actors payed by CIT to pose as the real on record witnesses.
3) They are part of a disinfo operation that fooled CIT.
4) They honestly decribe what they have witnessed.

What a joke CE, your hero thug pals accuse ever person who remotely contradicts their idiotic theory of being part of a disinfo operation. Plus the mutts are too stupid to realize that their own witnesses contradict one another and CIT's stupid theory.

Tell them to release their raw video, or tell them to STFU.

KTHXBYE!
 

Back
Top Bottom