• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

8 out of 8 at Citgo station

mudlark said:
Andrea Kaiser
Kirk Milburn (RIP)
Phillip Sheuerman
Thomas J. Trapasso
Dawn Vignola
Deb Anlauf (wouldn´t return call)
Mike Walter
Frank Probst
Vin Narayanan
Steve Gerard
John O'Keefe
Madelyn Zackem
Lt. Col O'Brien
Stephen McGraw
Don Scott
Wanda Ramey
Lloyd England

unreachable:

G. T. Stanley
Carla Thompson
Afework Hagos
Tim Timmerman

They are still trying to contact as MANY as is possible.
How many have been interviewed to COUNTER their evidence?
Numbers please..
Click to expand...

I'm curious. How many of them saw the plane hit the Pentagon?
 
Oh god, another CIT mouth piece.

I learned and subsequently forgot how to deal with the true believer.

My bad.

Ahem:

Very interesting theory Mudlark. All that we require is proof that an airliner could actually fly the flight path that is essential to CIT's theory. In particular, please provide to us the flight path, including bank angle, G Forces, stall speed, etc. for a path that flies over Paik, then parallel to the Navy Annex while descending, banks North of Citgo, continues descending below the level of the trees, pulls out of the bank, arrests the descent, pulls up and over the Pentagon at the impact site.

Should be very easy for you to prove! Thanks!
 
mudlark said:
Frank Probst

They are still trying to contact as MANY as is possible.
How many have been interviewed to COUNTER their evidence?
Numbers please..
Click to expand...

Hee hee! Oh yeah, they accused him of lying about the whole thing. What a couple of scum bags.

Oh damn, forgot already:

Very interesting theory Mudlark! All that we require is proof that an airliner could actually fly the flight path that is essential to CIT's theory. In particular, please provide to us the flight path, including bank angle, G Forces, stall speed, etc. for a path that flies over Paik, then parallel to the Navy Annex while descending, banks North of Citgo, continues descending below the level of the trees, pulls out of the bank, arrests the descent, pulls up and over the Pentagon at the impact site.
 
mudlark said:
How many have been interviewed to COUNTER their evidence?
Numbers please..
Click to expand...

I have no idea. It really doesn't matter because no one is really listening to them (CIT). Beside us guys that just like to **** with them. Hey It's fun watching the mental gymnastics.:cool:
 
Last edited:
twinstead said:
NOC, SOC, Coming down from the moon, beamed in by fairies...the number of eye witnesses who SAW the plane hit the Pentagon, the huge amount of physical evidence = IMPACT.

Deal with it.
Click to expand...

We going to have this discussion again about undocumented ´physical evidence´?
The ´witness testimony´ linked to does NOT contradict NOC.

Again, NOC = No impact

Just to remind people here is another sample of these so called ´counter NOC´ witnesses. Add this group to the aforementioned.

"Barbara"

ENSOR: So you believe it was a commercial airliner that was hitting the Pentagon?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, and I'm not sure exactly where the Pentagon, where it was in relationship top where the plane went down. You know, but it was relatively close to one another. Whether it hit any of the Pentagon, I am not sure.
Click to expand...

Anonymous AND did not see ´impact´


"Dave"
´near the Lincoln Memorial´

"Somebody said the Pentagon's gone up," said Dave...
Dave heard two booms, which sounded like the artillery salutes on the Mall on the Fourth of July, he said. It was likely the noise from a secondary blast at the Pentagon.
Click to expand...

Second hand testimony from an anonymous ´witness´ quoting another anonymous ´witness´!
Allegedly HEARD an explosion. Also heard the secondary explosion that is never discussed by the media.

"Div Devlin"
´in some hotel´ :rolleyes:

...my oldest son, John aged 12, pointed out the window yelling, "Dad look how low that plane is!" I looked but saw nothing and was sure it was just another of the myriad of low flights on their final approach into the airport. While looking out the window a low rumble was heard and smoke began to billow up into the sky.
Click to expand...

Incredible that these ´people´ are used both by detractors and so-called truthers as counterevidence...

"Gus"
´across the Potomac´

"I saw the plane. Low. Too low. Fast."
Click to expand...

Unbelievably the following person is on this list INCLUDING the quote:

"skarlet"

I want to know why there's this gap in my memory, this gap that makes it seem as though the plane simply became invisible and banked up at the very last minute..
Click to expand...

:unsure:
 
I almost hate to ask, but does mudlark have a theory about what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11?
 
DGM said:
I have no idea. It really doesn't matter because no one is really listening to them (CIT). Beside us guys that just like to **** with them. Hey It's fun watching the mental gymnastics.:cool:
Click to expand...

You´re not doing a very good job.
Don´t sprain yourself.
 
mudlark said:
We going to have this discussion again about undocumented ´physical evidence´?
The ´witness testimony´ linked to does NOT contradict NOC.

Again, NOC = No impact
Click to expand...


So is that how you cavilierly hand wave away the physical evidence? It's "undocumented"? You have powerful debate mojo if you can just toss out any contrary evidence as 'faked', don't you? LOL
 
paging mudlark

Would you care to enlighten us with your theory about what happened to flight 77 and the Pentagon on 9/11/01? Pretty please?
 
there is indeed a reason why even truthers think no planers are idiots

ETA: That includes 'no impacters'
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
Hee hee! Oh yeah, they accused him of lying about the whole thing. What a couple of scum bags.

Oh damn, forgot already:

Very interesting theory Mudlark! All that we require is proof that an airliner could actually fly the flight path that is essential to CIT's theory. In particular, please provide to us the flight path, including bank angle, G Forces, stall speed, etc. for a path that flies over Paik, then parallel to the Navy Annex while descending, banks North of Citgo, continues descending below the level of the trees, pulls out of the bank, arrests the descent, pulls up and over the Pentagon at the impact site.
Click to expand...

Bumpity bump for CIT's best pally of a friend, Mudlark!

Very interesting theory Mudlark! All that we require is proof that an airliner could actually fly the flight path that is essential to CIT's theory. In particular, please provide to us the flight path, including bank angle, G Forces, stall speed, etc. for a path that flies over Paik, then parallel to the Navy Annex while descending, banks North of Citgo, continues descending below the level of the trees, pulls out of the bank, arrests the descent, pulls up and over the Pentagon at the impact site.
 
mudlark said:
I think someone else needs to watch the video again.
Click to expand...

I think somebody needs to:

Very interesting theory Mudlark! All that we require is proof that an airliner could actually fly the flight path that is essential to CIT's theory. In particular, please provide to us the flight path, including bank angle, G Forces, stall speed, etc. for a path that flies over Paik, then parallel to the Navy Annex while descending, banks North of Citgo, continues descending below the level of the trees, pulls out of the bank, arrests the descent, pulls up and over the Pentagon at the impact site.
Click to expand...
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
That's a rather... brain-damaged interpretation of what I wrote. I'm glad it's yours.
Click to expand...

Just answering one of the dumbest counterarguments I´ve seen for a while...oh wait...someone here told me impact was POSSIBLE from NOC. Make that the second dumbest..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom