• 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

Another nail in the CIT coffin is the fact that none for these witnesses support their conclusion that the plane did not hit the Pentagon. In fact CIT never tells them why they're taking their statements (the real reason). Have any of these witnesses gone on record as saying, "I've viewed NSA (or any of their "works") and I support it's content"? Have CIT ever offered any of their "works" to any of these witnesses?
 
Last edited:
parky76 said:
seriously, the only witness testimony that I consider reliable from these people, is that there WAS a plane, if came from the West, and it hit the Pentagon. all the other stuff is too easily influenced by perspective and angle from the ground, the short time frame of their view, and innocent human error.
Click to expand...


Good enough for you, not good enough for me. I care about evidence. Why don't you stop posting here if you are not interested?
 
Childlike Empress said:
Good enough for you, not good enough for me. I care about evidence. Why don't you stop posting here if you are not interested?
Click to expand...
How do you normally weigh eyewitness testimony against physical (add to that radar) evidence? Is is on par or do you lean to the personal perspective. Myself I lean toward science and things that can be touched (not necessary for me to personally do so).
 
Childlike Empress said:
The plane was not over the Navy Annex at all according to the official data. Terry Morin is a north side witness and everybody can check what he had to say, because i've posted the links.
Click to expand...


Wrong again. Morin in his second statement put the plane a few yards more north than the "official" flight path, but that does not mean that he is a NOC witness. He put the plane practically on top of him and he said that the plane would hit the Air Force Memorial if it had existed then. Plot a line and see where that takes you. Not "north of the Citgo". Again, he said he watched the plane fly from that area as it descended towards the Pentagon, until he began to loose sight of it through some trees. That is about as explicit as it gets to a SOC path. Draw the lines and see for yourself. In order to turn Morin into a NOC witness, Ranke must either ignore this statement or claim that Morin saw the plane (again) flying away AFTER the explosion. That's the opposite of what Morin actually said on both occasions.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Good enough for you, not good enough for me. I care about evidence. Why don't you stop posting here if you are not interested?
Click to expand...

there is video evidence that the plane did NOT fly over the Pentagon. there is eyewitness evidence that the plane crashed into the Pentagon.

your own eye-witnesses said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. therefore, going by your witnesses, the plane hit the Pentagon.

case solved.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Good enough for you, not good enough for me. I care about evidence. Why don't you stop posting here if you are not interested?
Click to expand...

Then post some evidence. So far all I have seen are out-of-context quotes and ramblings to support NoC. In context, both Paik and Morin are SoC witnesses (if a person accepts logic). Lagasse and Brooks if we accept the NoC premise are eyewitnesses to the poles being hit NoC, not SoC, but the physical and photographic evidence supports SoC. So no, I have seen you present no evidence, just amusing tooth fairy tales.
 
Mangoose said:
Wrong again.
Click to expand...


No, right again (and again and again). According to the data, the plane should have been nowhere near where the tasteless Air Force Memorial is now. You are relying on the ignorance and unwillingness to look at the source material of the audience. I'm not sure if this will work.
 
Childlike Empress said:
No, right again (and again and again). According to the data, the plane should have been nowhere near where the tasteless Air Force Memorial is now. You are relying on the ignorance and unwillingness to look at the source material of the audience. I'm not sure if this will work.
Click to expand...

And you are putting all of your eggs in a tenuous eye witness basket. The only think I can think is it makes it easier for you to hand wave away the physical evidence.
 
Childlike Empress said:
No, right again (and again and again). According to the data, the plane should have been nowhere near where the tasteless Air Force Memorial is now. You are relying on the ignorance and unwillingness to look at the source material of the audience. I'm not sure if this will work.
Click to expand...

Which data? The data Ranke tells you not to accept?

"Unverifiable, government-alleged evidence such as this cannot be accepted on pure faith as valid in light of the fact that it is contradicted by conclusive, independent, verifiable evidence indicating that the plane did not hit the building."
 
Yea, I'm surprised Ranke doesn't sprain a wrist from all the hand waving.
 
UNLoVedRebel said:
Which data? The data Ranke tells you not to accept?

"Unverifiable, government-alleged evidence such as this cannot be accepted on pure faith as valid in light of the fact that it is contradicted by conclusive, independent, verifiable evidence indicating that the plane did not hit the building."
Click to expand...

I might add that most of the 'government-alleged' evidence can be verified. The radar data has been verified over-and-over again by eyewitnesses on the ground and atc recordings along with hand-written atc statements. Data from FAA radar matches (within normal variance) the 84 RADES data. So the radar data has been verified over-and-over again. It is objective data not subject to CIT spin.

The FDR data is verified using the radar data and by over 100 eyewitnesses (unless you spin them into tooth fairy tales).

Any court in the world will give greater weight to the objective data (radar, fdr, photographic, etc) than it will subjective data (eyewitness accounts). When in conflict, the subjective data is dismissed. That is why after DNA evidence became readily available, hundreds (thousands actually) of convicted rapists and murderers had their convictions over-turned because they had been convicted by subjective (eyewitness) evidence.

So CIT/P4T has it backwards. Eyewitness accounts take a back-seat to objective evidence. In this case, none of the posters want to talk about that or go show me the plane beyond the Pentagon with the objective evidence.

This is just a way to pass time really with the hopes that perhaps one of the CIT cultists will finally wake up and join the rest of the reasoning world. In the meantime, my little boy still believes in the tooth fairy too.
 
Childlike Empress said:
No, right again (and again and again). According to the data, the plane should have been nowhere near where the tasteless Air Force Memorial is now. You are relying on the ignorance and unwillingness to look at the source material of the audience. I'm not sure if this will work.
Click to expand...


You still don't get it. Placing the plane somewhat away from the actual path (a range of error completely expected in witness testimony) does not by itself a NOC witness make.

You claim that Morin is a NOC witness. You have failed to demonstrate this when, by his own words, he can only be a SOC witness (for the reasons I have already mentioned ad nauseum).
 
@BCR: The split thread "Where is the evidence for Flight 77" is already sinking. I have not read the names of the "over hundred" eyewitnesses contradicting what CIT has discovered over there. I have read mudlark demolishing a lot of the supposed SoC witnesses here, though. I have read Caustic Logic's pathetic piece. Absolutely unconvincing. Nothing against those random people stating on scene on camera what they have seen.

At least you don't try to dismiss the CIT witnesses, BCR. Can i count you on option 1)?
 
Childlike Empress said:
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.
Click to expand...


So far, we have (correct me if i'm wrong):

1)
apathoid
BCR
beachnut
DGM
funk de fino

2)
-

3)
Caustic Logic

4)
Algebra34
Childlike Empress
mudlark
 
Last edited:
UNLoVedRebel said:
You have finally access to the documentation that the light poles were SOC?
Or are we still going bythe word of the FBI?
Click to expand...

Not surprisingly the VDOT claims they have no documentation or record of the replacement of the poles at all. CIT claims in National Security Alert that the VDOT said this when asked via FOIA.


But the exact location of the light poles is independently established via photographic and video evidence.

Do you really deny this?

Stop wasting my time on nonsensical posts.

polecomposite.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom