• 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

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...
You don't care about evidence you like lies presented by CIT made up out of ignorance. Some people have a natural ability to solve problems, CIT have a natural ability to make up dirt dumb delusions only a few fringe conspiracy minded folk believe.

The FDR presents the 61.5 degrees for the final true track course. All the witnesses the CIT dolts present point to this course. A course. Got flight knowledge?

BCR has taken the time to get RADAR data from multiple sites which confirm 77's flight path and match the FDR information.

BCR is interested in the truth, you prefer the delusional presentation by CIT. You like lies, BCR prefers truth. BCR is a super skeptic, you are not much of skeptic because skeptics don't argue with facts the present facts. When will you find a fact instead of giving a thumb up for CIT preventions of super stupid lies?

Why does RADAR data and FDR support each other? Why can't you see all the witnesses support the RADAR and FDR? I have to admit the USAF trained me to be a skeptic by training me how to analyze witness statements, which involved a lot of science, physics, math, and flight knowledge. I don't understand how you can be fooled by idiots.

Do you have something to refute the 61.5 degree true track course of Flight 77 stored in the FDR which lines up with the damage to the Pentagon and lampposts? This course is what CIT witnesses point to. ... it is funny as hell watching CIT produce delusions.
 
A W Smith said:
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
Click to expand...

It's plainly stated several times throughout National Security Alert as the animation is played that it is based off a "hypothetical average of all witness illustrations reported".

So since the animation is a hypothetical average of all witnesses and you only have to describe it as a "nudge" to completely reconcile Morin's account of seeing only the "belly" and not having a "side view" it's clear that this is well within a reasonable margin of error.

the required official flight path isn't even close to being within a reasonable margin of error of what Morin describes:

morinPOVsouth.gif


So who's special pleading?
 
UNLoVedRebel said:
Once again, how do you even know the damage to the building? Because using your hero's own...err....logic....you have no way of knowing unless it's "independently verified."

"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...

Once again the directional damage to the building is independently established via photographic and video evidence.

This proves the location of the damage to the outer facade of the E-ring and the required trajectory to the end of the damage at the C-ring hole.


cringholehelicopter.jpg


Do you really deny this (again)?
 
UNLoVedRebel said:
I love this. From the two morons' webiste they're so proud of. First they tell us we have to accept "unverifiable government evidence" from the ASCE, so we know the damage to the pentagon.

"As made clear in the video presentation National Security Alert, it is impossible for a plane on the north side -- let alone one in a significant right-hand bank as described by all witnesses who were in the best locations to observe the plane's flight path as it approached from over the Navy Annex -- to hit the light poles or cause the directional damage to the building outlined in the ASCE Building Performance Report".

Then they go on to tell us not to accept "unverifiable government evidence."

"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...

How do you not get this?
The ASCE report is presented as the official report on damage caused to the Pentagon.
They say that the plane entered between the first and second floors from SOC at 540+mph.
CIT have exposed this as a lie.
They didn´t accept its findings ´on pure faith´. They found solid evidence that makes this report a sham.

So what are you saying? YOU don´t accept the findings of the report?
The placement of the downed poles?
 
Mangoose said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hyper-scrutinize his two accounts all you want but you can not change the fact that he places the plane directly over the Navy Annex or north of Columbia Pike in BOTH accounts.

This is fatal to the official flight path and corroborates the north side approach.

Corroboration is what reveals which details are accurate.

Since Morin's general claim that the plane was directly over the Navy Annex has been corroborated by many while his specific claim regarding a parallel heading is not (yet also contradicts the official flight path) it's clear which detail is accurate and which is not.
 
The FDR data is verified using the radar data and by over 100 eyewitnesses
Click to expand...

Who are these witnesses (names)?
If you ARE going to link me to a site check the witnesses I have mentioned already earlier in the thread that neither contradict NOC, have any bearing on the path, and more importantly NONE of whom claim to have witnessed SOC.

What exactly does the FDR/RADES data reveal about the path between the Annex and lightpole 1 that any witness could have verified it?
 
All the witnesses the CIT dolts present point to this course.
Click to expand...

Which witnesses? You like to generalise on the witnesses and when you are pulled up on it, you simply ignore it. THEN go back to repeat the same lies.
I know your style Beachnut.
 
the USAF trained me to be a skeptic by training me how to analyze witness statements, which involved a lot of science, physics, math, and flight knowledge. I don't understand how you can be fooled by idiots.
Click to expand...

Analyze these people

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/gifs/ancworkers.gif

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/gifs/Brookspointingnorth.gif

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/gifs/lagassepointsnorth.gif

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/gifs/Robertpointsnorth.gif

Tell them to their faces that they must have been dumb as a box of rocks to have
´misremembered´ simple details that they saw.
Tell us ´idiots´ who contradicts them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
beachnut said:
I have to admit the USAF trained me to be a skeptic by training me how to analyze witness statements, which involved a lot of science, physics, math, and flight knowledge.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that's sad, beachnut. I called you a liar yesterday and got a yellow card for it. The infraction doesn't change my opinion. You explaining how that image ended up named "Edwardpointsouth.gif" maybe would. Frankly, i think you should retire from this discussion. You aren't objective at all.
 
DGM said:
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?
Click to expand...

You've got that backwards DGM. CIT announced back in July that they sent copies of NSA to the witnesses with invites to their conference in Arlington. What's clear is that to this day none of the witnesses have spoken out against CIT or suggested that their testimony was misrepresented. The all stand by where they place the plane even after seeing CIT's presentations.

Whether or not they fully accept the clear implications of a north side approach is anyone's guess but they stand by their placement of the plane on the north side.

Comments from Lagasse after viewing The PentaCon when it was first released are available here

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=387

"Like I said before what I said contradicts the theories
of engineers that never asked me or Sgt Brooks or any Police
eyewitnesses what he-she or they saw. 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."

-William Lagasse
Click to expand...

Lagasse is willing to suggest that the official reports are wrong but he is not willing to back down from his placement of the plane on the north side. It's not surprising that this Pentagon police officer isn't inclined to accept or speak out regarding the clear implications of his placement of the plane on the north side. But if he wasn't so sure about the north side or if CIT had misrepresented him you better believe he'd be willing to speak out against them.

This hasn't happened with any of the witnesses for a reason and if it had we would all know about it, wouldn´t we?
 
DGM said:
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?
Click to expand...

You've got that backwards DGM. CIT announced back in July that they sent copies of NSA to the witnesses with invites to their conference in Arlington. What's clear is that to this day none of the witnesses have spoken out against CIT or suggested that their testimony was misrepresented. The all stand by where they place the plane even after seeing CIT's presentations.

Whether or not they fully accept the clear implications of a north side approach is anyone's guess but they stand by their placement of the plane on the north side.

Comments from Lagasse after viewing The PentaCon when it was first released are available here

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=387

"Like I said before what I said contradicts the theories
of engineers that never asked me or Sgt Brooks or any Police
eyewitnesses what he-she or they saw. 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."

-William Lagasse
Click to expand...

Lagasse is willing to suggest that the official reports are wrong but he is not willing to back down from his placement of the plane on the north side. It's not surprising that this Pentagon police officer isn't inclined to accept or speak out regarding the clear implications of his placement of the plane on the north side. But if he wasn't so sure about the north side or if CIT had misrepresented him you better believe he'd be willing to speak out against them.

This hasn't happened with any of the witnesses for a reason and if it had we would all know about it, wouldn´t we?
 
mudlark said:
Analyze these people

Tell them to their faces that they must have been dumb as a box of rocks to have
´misremembered´ simple details that they saw.
Tell us ´idiots´ who contradicts them.
Click to expand...

did any of these men state that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon?
 
mudlark said:
http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/morinPOVsouth.gif
Click to expand...


Oh looky looky, it shows the airliner sinking down beyond the line of trees, precisely what Morin says he saw. Now how in heck could Morin see the trees obscuring the descending plane .... if he is a NOC witness?

mudlark said:
Hyper-scrutinize his two accounts all you want but you can not change the fact that he places the plane directly over the Navy Annex or north of Columbia Pike in BOTH accounts.

This is fatal to the official flight path and corroborates the north side approach.
Click to expand...


False. Morin does not "corroborate the north side approach". Now repeat along with Childlike Empress, "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".
 
yeah, this may be the stupidest thread in all of JREFdom.

but its funny watching da twoofers make asses of themselves.

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom