• 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:
Uh huh. The ´wing scuff´.
ALL Annex witnesses are wrong too?
You will have to PROVE that it was caused by a ´wing´ :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You will have to prove that Morin saw a plane fly over the north of him (although he was walking south) and not along the Annex 'edge' as he claims.
 
16.5 said:
Uhh, yeah, why are you reposting this when i told you what was wrong with this, and you said you were going to go back and ask PFFT for the answers. Did you lie about that??

Stop posting until you can show us CIT's stupid flight path is possible.
Click to expand...

What? You did not point out anything "wrong" with it.
You said that it does not address the pull up and that is false. You didn´t bother your rearend to read it.

The pull up is addressed in detail on page 4.



Stop posting? Who are you?
I´m waiting on the figures to show over there.
Then you will probably try and get me banned for posting by proxy?
Not ONE of you have addressed my posts with debate.
Failed on all counts.

Why don´t YOU post the alleged official path from the Navy Annex to lightpole 1?
I have NEVER seen that little mystery route you keep harping on about,
Why´s that?
 
Last edited:
Mudlark, Why does your Morin animation have the Boeing flying behind him in relation to the direction he was walking when in that very animation itself Morin's quoted text describes it as directly above him?
 
BCR said:
You will have to prove that Morin saw a plane fly over the north of him (although he was walking south) and not along the Annex 'edge' as he claims.
Click to expand...

You´ll have to explain the aforementioned quotes attributed to Morin to coincide with the plane allegedly being on the Southside

"I was inside, it flew over the top of me"

"I had no side view"

"I didn't see the stripes I saw the silver belly"
Click to expand...

Give it up.
 
parky76 said:
debate? is that why you are here? I'm not sooo sure of that.
Click to expand...

I have answered every post which is more than can be said for anybody else here.
Insults, proven falsehoods and total ignoring of facts presented seem to be the norm on this subject.
I haven´t seen YOU add anything useful.
 
16.5 said:
Uhh, yeah, why are you reposting this when i told you what was wrong with this, and you said you were going to go back and ask PFFT for the answers. Did you lie about that??

Stop posting until you can show us CIT's stupid flight path is possible.
Click to expand...

If you are able to refute the math presented do so and present your "debunk" to P4T but stop demanding that I present the math because it's all right there.
 
Suggest you guys do this. Why continue to repeat stuff from 2006?
 

Attachments

  • Clipboard01.jpg
    Clipboard01.jpg
    37.3 KB · Views: 30
A W Smith said:
Mudlark, Why does your Morin animation have the Boeing flying behind him in relation to the direction he was walking when in that very animation itself Morin's quoted text describes it as directly above him?
Click to expand...

No matter how you spin it, the plane was above him.
He was within the wings of the Annex.
It was NOT flying parallel to the Navy Annex to the outside of the structure.

He is corraborated by more than 20 witnesses at various strategic points to draw this conclusion.

NOCandstraighttestimony-3.jpg
 
Arus808 said:
Suggest you guys do this. Why continue to repeat stuff from 2006?
Click to expand...

What I would expect anyway seeing you guys can´t spin this evidence or annoy me enough to get me banned.
Thanks for conceding that the NOC testimony is undebunkable.
 
mudlark said:
What I would expect anyway seeing you guys can´t spin this evidence or annoy me enough to get me banned.
Thanks for conceding that the NOC testimony is undebunkable.
Click to expand...

All of the physical evidence goes along the official flight path. The NoC testimony is debunked.
 
Just to clarify things for me, mudlark, you think that from a north flightpath the plane either (a) hit the pentagon (in which case I don't care because it hit the pentagon) or (b) flew over the pentagon while a missile or a bomb went off (in which case I dismiss you as a crank).

Just to clarify things, the whole point of your argument rests on one of the above scenarios. Yes?
 
Redtail said:
All of the physical evidence goes along the official flight path. The NoC testimony is debunked.
Click to expand...

You have finally access to the documentation of said physical evidence?
Or are we still going bythe word of the FBI?
 
Oscar said:
Just to clarify things for me, mudlark, you think that from a north flightpath the plane either (a) hit the pentagon (in which case I don't care because it hit the pentagon) or (b) flew over the pentagon while a missile or a bomb went off (in which case I dismiss you as a crank).

Just to clarify things, the whole point of your argument rests on one of the above scenarios. Yes?
Click to expand...

The plane flew NOC.
The damage from the lightpoles, through to the trailer and subsequent damage to the building can NOT be physically possible from this trajectory.
The plane could NOT have hit the building.
A missile? No.
Explosives? Yes.

Debunk NOC THEN you can call me a ´crank´

Is that your 2 cents worth?
 
mudlark said:
You have finally access to the documentation of said physical evidence?
Or are we still going bythe word of the FBI?
Click to expand...

You have finally access to the documentation that the light poles were SOC?
Or are we still going bythe word of the FBI?
 
So you're saying that persons unknown came up with the great idea of hijacking a passenger airline to fly straight at the pentagon so that it could miss at the last moment. That sounds dumb for a start. But, wait, even better they then plant explosives at the pentagon (that should be easy) so that it looked like the aircraft hit the pentagon when it really didn't. Wow. Great plan guys. That'll fox them.

And this brilliant plan was carried out because...um, because...nope, you've got me there.

Meanwhile, the real airliner then miraculously disappears from all radar screens and is secretly flown to an unknown location and hidden. With all the passengers. That'll be easy. Then we'll fiddle all the evidence to make it look like a passenger jet and all its passengers were found at the pentagon. Wahey, great plan. Brilliant.

And once again...why?
 
A W Smith said:
Mudlark, Why does your Morin animation have the Boeing flying behind him in relation to the direction he was walking when in that very animation itself Morin's quoted text describes it as directly above him?
Click to expand...

mudlark said:
No matter how you spin it, the plane was above him.
He was within the wings of the Annex.
It was NOT flying parallel to the Navy Annex to the outside of the structure.
Click to expand...

Spin it? The only one spinning here is you mudlark. I am just exposing a fatal flaw in the animation you yourself posted which directly contradicts Morin's own testimony you quoted in that very animation. I am not spinning anything. I am pointing out how you and CIT have to nudge the boeing further north despite the witness testimony to further your conspiracy. I think everyone here can see what you are doing. It is a case of special pleading
 
Redtail said:
For the DNA evidence, yes I go by the word of the FBI. Also, here you will find several links, pictures, and even.... eye witness links!!!

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary
Click to expand...

Yeah listen, it has already been established in this thread that these ´witness links´ are fatally flawed and that they do NOT debunk NOC.
Sorry I don´t go by the word of government agencies on ANYTHING concerning the Pentagon, especially if it is not backed up by documented, verifiable evidence.

These pictures wouldn´t be of the undocumented plane parts I was referring to would they?

Night night
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom