8 out of 8 at Citgo station

[Thunder]

i really don't think you guys should answer any more Truther questions, unless it is clear that they are willing to do their own research. if they are just coming to JREF for supposed answers, which REALLY means they are just here for laughs, than its really not worth wasting any energy on them.

 

[stewieg]

Edwardpointsouth.gif

Edward points east, Liar. On the north side of Columbia Pike, Liar.

Attack the argument, not the arguer

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

Just asking questions but why is Balsamo a snake oil salesman and CIT legit?

 

[Dog Town]

He said the plane ´veered to the RIGHT into the Pentagon´...from SOC??
Nah. You fail.

Your desire to deny, and spin, is off the charts. Funny to watch you twist,though! Pffft...

 

[twinstead]

So CE where exactly is Ed pointing?

 

[mudlark]

How do you know what he "believed" and what he saw. He said he saw the light poles north of Citgo. Stop calling Lagasse a liar. His testimony has been corroborated. You just claimed you agree with Mr England that the light poles were North of the Citgo and the plane hit the pentagon. If you don't believe this, try to explain why the light poles WEREN'T north of the citgo and why the corroborating independently verified witnesses are all of the sudden wrong and the official story is right.

That´s a really weak and pathetic play on words.
I KNOW that he was sure which side of the Citgo gas station he ´believed´ he saw the plane. Corraborated by his partner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elKov_UZDQE

¨Obviously what I saw happened, therefore the conclusions made by people who didnt see it can be flawed...I accept the fact that there can be miscalculations on my part, but NOT whether or not the plane was on the North or South side of the gas station."

Why don´t YOU go and ask him what he ´believed´ he saw and tell him he is wrong.

You just claimed you agree with Mr England that the light poles were North of the Citgo and the plane hit the pentagon. If you don't believe this, try to explain why the light poles WEREN'T north of the citgo and why the corroborating independently verified witnesses are all of the sudden wrong and the official story is right

What are you babbling about???

 

[mudlark]

I did not ignore. He said he could not see exactly where it hit. The key is that he did see it go down and 'hit' something. He did not see it fly over and beyond. After it 'hit' something, he did not see it flying around again. From his vantage point at ~3,000 feet agl, he could see very well (nice clear day). I also have 'as it happened' audio for 2 Arlington County police officers on Columbia Pike. The saw it go down and 'hit' something. They did not see it again after that and they were both facing towards the Pentagon.

So here we have a a plane, described 'as it happened' as an American Airlines 757. The 'as it happened' record indicates it 'hit' something, never to be seen again. The radar tells the same story. So, what happened to the plane mudlark?

False.

"I distinctly remember having a difficult time keeping the AA flight in sight after we turned back to the east to follow it per a request from Wash. Departure Control. When I saw the initial explosion I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC. It was then that I was able to see the sun reflecting off the Potomac and the runway at Wash. Nat'l and thought to myself that the AA flight must have had some sort of IFE and was trying to make it back to National Airport."
Colonel Steve O´Brien

Give it up man.
He was meant to make out a plane when he couldn´t even make out the BUILDING?

Aren´t you the guy who supplied the 2 data points beyond the Navy Annex?
One was NOC and the other was almost on the I-395 going towards South Parking?

Yeah I´ve seen that.
Pass. Thanks

 

[DGM]

Mudlark:
How about showing their flight paths to be aerodynamically possible for a 757?

 

[mudlark]

Originally Posted by mudlark

Okay, night folks. Hopefully one of you guys will have the courage to put forward just ONE SOC witness by tomorrow...

... Why would anyone have to?

Because it was proposed earlier in the thread that there were ´100s´ of them?
Because the argument is whether the plane flew NOC and not one SOC witness has been offered as a counterargument?

 

[Baylor]

That´s a really weak and pathetic play on words.

Then you must not be impressed with the verbal skills of tubby and tremors, since those are their words. You have zero evidence the light poles were on the South side of the gas station and corroborating eyewitness testimonies of the light poles being on the North side.

 

[mudlark]

"At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again -- only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring."


Ouch! Penny ever get interviewed by the Douche Twins?

So I take it the 1.3 seconds from lightpole 1 to the Pentagon facade and the
0.8 second penetration of the building are a falsehood?
I personally can´t understand how she could extract so much detail of an impact at the alleged speed of both the plane and the penetration.
All the while not taking her eyes off an instantaneous explosion shown on the 5 frames?

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/pentanimxox1rt.gif

(or is this not 100% either?)

A blastwave that was felt up to 2km away?

Hopefully they soon will.

There was one interview by a person who failed to ask specific questions on NOC and the right hand banking manouevre attested by many others not included on CIT´s NOC witnesses, but garnered two pertinent facts which exposed media dishonesty about her testimony.

HILL: ¨And you said you saw it... you saw it hit one of the light poles?¨

ELGAS: ¨ No, I didn't see it hit. I heard on the news that it hit a light pole

On how she came across the Smithsonian debris

HILL: ¨And that kinda... the... what I was reading it fell into your car?¨

ELGAS: ¨Well, that's what THEY said, but that's not what happened.¨

HILL: ¨You just picked it up, or?¨

ELGAS: ¨ I Picked it up¨.

Personally I can´t wait to hear what else Craig and Aldo will find out if they do interview her.

 

[mudlark]

Originally Posted by jhunter1163
Which media is lying, Mudlark?

Originally Posted by mudlark
Take your pick. Manipulation. Embellishment.

Umm... "Manipulation" and "Embellishment" aren't the names of any media organizations that I'm aware of. Perhaps you could reread that question and provide a meaningful response the second time around.

What difference does it make?
The quotes I mentioned appeared in links which were in turn linked to various media outlets. Go look them up. They are there.

 

[twinstead]

Mudlark. Your PATH IS IMPOSSIBLE. I don't care how many witnesses you can trot out. Your flight path is impossible. What sad is that you don't even care!

 

[mudlark]

Originally Posted by mudlark
NOC. Funny how the damage allegedly caused by the plane happened from these alleged trajectories huh?

Fixed your reply to me.

Is that it?

Still waiting on an answer as to how the witnesses in the link you posted contradict the NOC witnesses when many back this claim up, many did not and physically COULD not see any ´impact´, many HEARD an explosion, many make NO bearing on whether the plane was NOC or SOC and more importantly NONE describe SOC.

 

[mudlark]

QUOTE=UNLoVedRebel;5470461][qimg]http://www.911myths.com/images/f/fe/Edwardpointsnorth.gif[/qimg][/QUOTE]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1E6HHOfBbE

The gif that you repeatedly show is in relation to Craig Ranke asking Ed Paik the ALTITUDE of the plane as it passed over him. He was pointing at the roof of the building as a perspective. NOT the direction it took.

02:28

Craig: How high was the plane when it was in front of you?

Ed Paik: uhhh..almost hit (points at roof)..I thought at that time the airplane hit...uhhh roof, MY ROOF. My building roof (points the length of his roof)...Hit THIS ROOF.That much lower.

03:50

He makes the same gesture, talking about his roof without looking behind him.

The gif you use is a pure manipulation of footage that has NOTHING to do with the direction of the plane.
He places the body over the roof AT AN ANGLE that brings the plane NOC.
Are you suggesting that at 540+mph that there could be ANY deviation in course by the time it came over the annex??

When asked the direction he makes this signal

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/paikheading.gif

He draws this line

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/paikmap-2.jpg

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/edpaiksextendedpath-1.jpg

Can we drop this charade now?

He is an NOC witness no matter how you try and manipulate images and play on words.

 

[jhunter1163]

What difference does it make?
The quotes I mentioned appeared in links which were in turn linked to various media outlets. Go look them up. They are there.

They were linked to a ---------->conspiracy site<---------- which twisted the "white smoke" comment into the good Reverend seeing a missile.

Does that make it a little clearer?

 

[twinstead]

Is that it?

Still waiting on an answer as to how the witnesses in the link you posted contradict the NOC witnesses when many back this claim up, many did not and physically COULD not see any ´impact´, many HEARD an explosion, many make NO bearing on whether the plane was NOC or SOC and more importantly NONE describe SOC.

Still waiting as to how your proposed flight path and pull up over the Pentagon is physically possible!

 

[Baylor]

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/paikheading.gif

 

[mudlark]

[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Edwardpointsouth.gif[/qimg]

Paik points to Pentagon direct. Fact, Paik says 77 almost hit the tower behind Paik in the photo, the VDOT tower. This all supports 61.2 to 61.5 degrees found in the hard evidence of the FDR found in the Pentagon after the exact damage made by a kinetic energy impact of a 757. Oops, DNA verifies the impact, and makes CIT dirt dumb liars; are you supporting the delusions of idiots?

False. In an earlier interview with Russel Pickering

PICKERING: You didn't SEE it hit the tower.

PAIK: At that time no I didn't see that. Because, uh, next morning the, uh, the repair guys go up there.

He did NOT think the plane ´hit the tower´. He saw ´repair guys´ the next day. He says the body of the plane was ´over the roof´. Are you suggesting he thought the wings extended that far?

Paik points not east but to a flight path of 77; verifies the south flight path, gif titled paik points south

False. He was pointing at the roof in that gif AND without looking behind him.
He was NOT talking of the direction.

witnesses

Not ´100s of witnesses´? Got any SOC to put forward?

 

[jhunter1163]

Does anyone have the pic of the wing scuff on the VDOT tower handy?

 

[Childlike Empress]

So CE where exactly is Ed pointing?

What's your impression?