8 out of 8 at Citgo station

[JohnG]

JohnG, dismissing evidence out of incredulity is called faulty logic. I have absolutely no idea what happened to Lloyde England, it seems bizarre eighter way. Should i therefore dismiss corroborated witness testimony by more than a dozen credible witnesses?

How come when anyone disputes the generally accepted narrative of the Pentagon attack and they are asked to lay out their own narrative, all we seem to get is the internet equivalent of a blank stare or at best some bluster about a cleverly culled subset of eyewitnesses, misguided ideas on how security cameras work and supposedly suspicious light poles? How come no one steps up to the plate and explains why all the bait and switch missiles/bombs/decoy planes would be considered a good idea by any supposedly cunning and sinister cabal planning an attack on the Pentagon?

...

Annnd there's the "blank stare" I was referring to. You are of course under no obligation to respond to that post, but I'm disappointed that you didn't even try. You cling to a small group of witnesses (who awkwardly do not back you up on the whole jet not hitting the Pentagon thing) but can't face having to own up to the absurd conclusion your questioning of the accepted narrative inevitably leads because (consciously or not) you know how deeply stupid the whole "missile(or bomb)/passenger switcheroo/air show/hastily planted evidence pit crew/hope no one catches them in the act" theory really is.

NO one has EVER laid out a sane, logical counter theory to explain what happened at the Pentagon that day or to explain why the bad guys (whoever you think they were) would have signed off on such a bizarre, unnecessarily complicated "multiple points of failure" type scheme like the one CIT and their followers suggest. It's clear you are likely never going to be talked out of believing that the Government wasn't somehow involved in the attack, but try to wrap your brain around this: If anything goes wrong with the attack, like...

* The jet is videoed flying over the Pentagon after the blast and the footage is leaked to the web or TV before the Men in Black can get to it.

* Someone with a camera captures the teams planting wreckage, downed light poles, etc. and gets it on the web or TV before the Men in Black can get to them.

* The timing is a bit off and the bomb or missile goes off while the jet is still miles away from the target.

* The jet accidentally crashes somewhere other than the target but the bomb/missile still goes off on the preselected target.

* The bomb or missile is a dud and fails to go off (what do they do with the jet in that case?).

...or any number of other SNAFUs that would inevitably lead to uncovering the actual perpetrators??

Now, contrast that to what would happen if the Government was still somehow behind the plot (if you must) but the scheme was simply to dupe some disgruntled middle eastern men to hijack the jet and crash it into the Pentagon (no missiles or preplanted bombs), BUT the jet crashed, say, into another part of the Pentagon, resulting in roughly the same number of deaths and amount of damage. "They" still get what they wanted but with no more possibilty of their involvement being discovered as if the jet crashed "on target". No fears about coordinating the planting of evidence, no fears about the attack being captured on camera and released to the media.

Now can you or somebody please explain to me why when the evil cabal was originally brainstorming their 9/11 scheme, they decided to go with the first scheme I laid out above and not the second (extra credit if you can avoid misusing the term "shock and awe")?

 

[Childlike Empress]

You are demanding impossible things from me. You are confusing a scientific experiment with a criminal investigation (what we are dealing with here). I quoted Sherlock Holmes earlier. If a suspect in a criminal investigation turns out to have a bulletproof alibi, the defense doesn't have to come up with an "alternative narrative". The investigators have to restart from scratch or continue where they left the path of evidence.

 

[The Big Dog]

Oh brother the CIT shill has lost his ****.

Just do the math.

 

[carlitos]

REad the first 5 or 8 posts on this topic, then reflect on how it got to 16 pages. This is the absolutely worst case of reasoning ever employed. A plane was hijacked, crashed into the Pentagon killing all on board and a bunch of others.

But none of this happened because years later a few witnesses point the wrong way?

I hope none of these idiots ever gets on a jury.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Stop with the idiots from PFFT already, for god's sake.

Do you not realize the mopes did two separate calculations, one with the descent (with no bank), and one in gentle flat banking turn (with no descent). Neither of which fits the CIT magical path. There are several threads on that article, use the search feature.

You are the latest, persistent CIT fan boy. It is your path, calculate the whole thing, from Paik to Morin to banking north around the CITGO to descending below the level of the trees, to pulling up and over the Pentagon at the impact site. here is a hint: the ANC workers banks are completely insufficient. Make it fit all CIT witnesses, or at least tell us who you re throwing out

I won't even ask you to calculate the magical pirouette over the Pentagon, causing the plane to go in complete circle and exit over the South parking lot.

C'mon fan boy, do it. DO IT. Make history, CIT! DO IT!

I´m still waiting on the math or at least a link debunking Balsamo´s North flight path scenario.
It´s only ´drivel´ because you have no counterargument against these witnesses. The plane could NOT have impacted from NOC.
Large numbers of witnesses seeing a right bank, describing NOC, NONE seeing SOC...the nonsense that they ALL misremembered doesn´t fly any more.

Several of us have provided links to real math, while noting Rob Balsamo's stupefying incompetence in that subject.

As 16.5 noted above, neither you nor Balsamo have presented a coherent north-of-Citgo flight path.

Hundreds of regularly scheduled flights pass north of that building every day, most of them hundreds of miles north, so nobody is saying an aircraft can't fly north of that building. The question is whether the specific flight path you advocate was possible. We have been unable to determine that because you have yet to specify a specific flight path.

You have cited the infallibility of witnesses who say the aircraft flew north of Citgo and knocked down light poles in places where there is no record of light poles ever standing. When pressed to address that problem or others, you have continued to spam us with images and irrelevant text.

You offer nothing but air, whipped into a froth of words and images.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

´forgetfulness´?

a) This would apply to witnesses having to remember details such as colours, shapes, etc. This would be applicable to people trying to remember facial details, car details, NOT a bigass plane flying at them (ANC workers)

18 witnesses, so you, claim out of another 100 or so. That's less than 1/5 consistency in favor of the North approach you're trying to cram down my throat. And all of your witnesses STILL have it hitting the Pentagon, along with the other hundred people. The physical evidence CONFIRMS that the plane hit it.[/quote]

b) They were in a PERFECT position to see this.

That's irrelevant. Inaccuracies in witness testimony occur even from the first person standpoint during something that happens suddenly and within the span of only a few seconds. The flight paths as testified by witnesses is absolutely no exception to this.

c) Now these guys have ´physical/mental disabilities´?? Low.

You illegitimately malign me; I quoted the content expecting you to have the basic essentials to understand what's relevant - you know - the idea that witness testimony is prone to areas of inaccuracy. Since when does any of it explicitly require maligned intentions? Neither does it require mental impairments. Where the hell did you think I said that?

d) Exactly what ´bias´ would these guys have? They looked after a famous military cemetary...so..no.

What the heck does the location have to do with whether somebody is biased or not?

They were simply asked where they were and what they saw. Again, they all corraborrated.

I stopped reading this part right here; tell me again how you develop a sound model of consistency when the witness sampling includes less than 20% of all those in the immediate vicinity at that point in time. That's a hell of a way to crash and burn a court case, in fact, I'd go as far to say that in a real life court case a this sort of practice would amount to purgery given that CIT KNOWS that there were more than 18 witnesses. That just makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.

This has nothing to do with collusion. It was an incredible sight that was etched into their minds.
The rest has nothing to do with this case.

And of course happening fast. I'd definitely remember a seeing a plane crash into a building, just like I'd remember quite vividly taking a horrible fall onto the pavement. Everything that happens in between however may as well be a blur. Luckily physical evidence fills in the spaces; light poles getting knocked down for example. Visible damage to a building, or things that got slammed by a 100-ton jet ahead of the main impact event.

Again you seem under the impression that memory works like a photograph catching every detail. No no no, like a photo it does not.

using factors that have no bearing at all on this type of eyewitness testimony.

Really? None of the above factors in? Very telling.

They corraborrate. End of story.

Okay let me ask you; if the NOC testimony is accurate because it has a consistent track of witnesses consistently placing it along that path, then why is the testimony that the plane hit the pentagon left out; replaced instead by a flyover "theory"?

What ´100 witnesses´? Tell me how they contradict them. Many of them actually reinforce their statements.

They place a plane inside the pentagon, rather than over it perhaps. Perhaps that hasn't settled in yet.

 

[Pardalis]

If a suspect in a criminal investigation turns out to have a bulletproof alibi, the defense doesn't have to come up with an "alternative narrative".

Glad to see you admit defending Al Qaeda.

Nobody asked you to be their defense lawyer, you took the role upon yourself. Why is that?

ETA: no, wait, don't tell me, I already know. You hate America so much, you're willing to put yourself on the side of the worst scum on the Earth.

 

[Pardalis]

BTW, people, can't you see you are playing their game?

Nobody in the world is talking about this "fly over" idiocy, not even truthers, except here, you're giving insane people an audience they normally shouldn't have.

And @ mudlark, all this effort and skill you put in your pictures and animations, why don't you try working on something worthwhile, and more healthy for your sanity?

 

[LashL]

^^This.

Plus a reality check:

1) there aren't more than half a dozen people on the entire planet who purport to believe the Craptastically Illogical Treefort nonsense;

2) the few who promulgate said nonsense apparently can't even identify "north" with a compass in one hand and a magnet in the other;

3) the denizens of the treefort are hopelessly inept at interviewing people in anything even remotely approaching a legitimate fashion;

4) the evidence of flight 77 crashing at the Pentagon cannot be gainsaid. It is comprehensive, conclusive and overwhelming; and

5) ^^see above.

 

[BCR]

LashL...does this mean you do not believe in the tooth fairy

 

[beachnut]

Mind showing how what he describes matches the FDR/RADES data?
You guys talk about math from a discredited and highly dubious FDR yet none of you have ever plotted the plane´s course from the Annex to lightpole 1.
You talk a lot Beachnut but you don´t actually say anything.

You post a lot of delusional rants.

What is turn radius for the bank angles you posted?
In fact, what were the bank angles you posted?

The plane did not fly over the Annex, it flew over the Annex as in higher than, not exactly over.

All the witnesses describe what is in the FDR. Maybe the fact you are not a trained aircraft accident investigator keeps you from understanding 911.

p4t can't do math, they post 2,223Gs are required to pull out but fail to understand they are wrong. Balsamo does not have an ATP, no wonder he comes up with delusional G forces for 77. You can't present any math either; why?

Please post the NoC path you have. Please explain the G force required. Try to do something other than talk and spewing delusions.

What is the bank angle you posted in the photos; don't forget to do the math.?
What is the turn radius at the bank angle you can't define but posted as the CIT who pointed to the South Flight path has the little model 5 years after 911; how professional of CIT to make up delusions. Cool you believe the idiotic lies but can't do the math to support your delusions. Sad

My physics professor talked, and I listened. My engineering professors talked and I listened. When they asked for the math, I gave them the math and graduated. When will you do the math? Can you do math? Got physics?


Boger (a CIT witness) saw 77 impact the Pentagon, the 61.2 to 61.5 degree true track from that impact point is the flight path all the witnesses saw for the last 10 to 20 seconds of flight. All the witnesses describe this exact flight path from their frame of reference. The best part of CIT videos are CIT witnesses pointing to the flight path that knocked down the lampposts and impacted the Pentagon. The sad part is CIT making up lies about a NoC path that never existed.

 

[jhunter1163]

The wall o'text post is reported for personal information disclosed. We don't do that here, Mudlark.

 

[JohnG]

You are demanding impossible things from me. You are confusing a scientific experiment with a criminal investigation (what we are dealing with here). I quoted Sherlock Holmes earlier. If a suspect in a criminal investigation turns out to have a bulletproof alibi, the defense doesn't have to come up with an "alternative narrative". The investigators have to restart from scratch or continue where they left the path of evidence.

As a life long Sherlock Holmes fan I put it to you that you are ideologically (in this instance at least) ill-equipped to distinguish the "impossible" from the "improbable". Your unwavering conviction that the government (and non government experts) lied about virtually all aspects of the 9/11 attacks is forcing you into an absurd and untenable corner.

You don't really mean to suggest that a small group of (IMO) misled and confused witnesses provide a "bulletproof alibi" for Al-Qaeda?? How does that logically follow?

Any Defense Attorney, no matter how certain they may be about their client's innocence would surely be at least curious about how and why the actual perpetrator carried out the crime?

Just once (call it a thought experiment if you want) ask yourself if the alternative theory suggested by CIT makes any sense and if not why would anyone (no matter how supposedly diabolical) approve it and carry it out?

 

[twinstead]

You are demanding impossible things from me. You are confusing a scientific experiment with a criminal investigation (what we are dealing with here). I quoted Sherlock Holmes earlier. If a suspect in a criminal investigation turns out to have a bulletproof alibi, the defense doesn't have to come up with an "alternative narrative". The investigators have to restart from scratch or continue where they left the path of evidence.

But if ALL the evidence is considered, DNA, physical, etc, AND eye witness, any competent investigator would come to the conclusion that what you call the "official story" is the best narrative for the events. In that case, the defense better be trotting something a little more compelling than a handful of witnesses who saw the plane on another path, yet still claim the plane hit the Pentagon, or it's going to be a long day in court for them.

If I were the defense I'd start trying desperately to find an eye witness to a flyover or somebody planting evidence and lay off your little core of contrary witnesses.

 

[Thunder]

A plane hit the Pentagon.

why? cause I said so.

 

[jhunter1163]

A plane hit the Pentagon.

why? cause I said so.

Hey, it's as good as anything CIT has.

 

[carlitos]

Hey, it's as good as better than anything CIT has.

Fixed that for you. At least parky wouldn't freak out his audience or demand their personal info.

 

[Locknar]

Folks...in the interest of my, and perhaps countless others, sanity - STOP with the repetitive posting of the same pictures over, and over, and over...and over...and over again.

One time is fine...more times then I can count is flooding and against your Membership Agreement. If there is a image from another thread you want to reference - provide the link.

I've gone though the last 10 or 12 pages of this thread, and culled embedded images that appear to be duplicates (either within this thread, or from other threads).

If you feel I've mistakenly removed a embedded image (ie. as in it does not appear elsewhere on the forum) PM me. Or, as always, you are welcome to file a Appeal - instructions on how to do this can be found in your Membership Agreement.

Thus ends one of the longer mod boxes....

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

 

[BCR]

Why didn´t you speak to any of these NOC witnesses while you were there?
Name the witnesses you talked to.
Brooks ADMITTED in the CIT interview that he did not see the poles being hit.

You want us to take YOUR word for it over the likes of Lagasse (the ´police officer´) who was actually THERE that day as the plane flew by him?

Talking of tooth fairies, have you dug out any SOC witnesses yet?

So Brooks lied in his 2001 interview? And yet you are calling him credible? They did not ask him about his earlier interview, so which account is the correct one? The one he did closer to the event, or the one where he is playing to the camera years later?

Actually, I have posted audio and named a number of those witnesses here at JREF. However, most I do not post or identify simply because I won't subject innocent 'bystanders' to the CIT hit machine. However, you will find one or two new ones in the book. I don't put much stock in interviews of witnesses done years after the event after the story has been told hundreds of times and distorted for a number of reasons. In this case, the ONLY useful information that can be gained is where they were located, what general direction they saw the plane traverse, and anything else is just personal perception (very prone to error).

For example, the ANC witnesses saw the plane generally south traveling west to east terminating at the Pentagon. It turns out that the VDOT witness (the jew CIT likes to dismiss) gives an account very consistent with the fdr path. Paik describes the 'black' which would result from being in the plane's shadow, again a perfect match for the fdr path and altitude considering the sun's elevation and describes it south moving west to east. Morin is facing south and could not see north, so he also describes the plane south, moving west to east. I could go on, but you get the idea. And CIT has a tape recording of me telling them just this very thing a number of years ago, so they know better.

The Citgo witnesses are an exception, but in statistics they would be called 'outliers'. Data points outside the range of the majority of data points. There could be a thousand reasons why that is so, but most likely it has to do with their location under a canopy. In the case of Brooks, he can't make up his mind what he saw, so I consider that he saw a plane moving west to east, but not much beyond that.

So post all of the little pictures you want, but tooth fairy paths that are aerodynamicly and mathematically impossible at the speeds involved only suggests that the witnesses perceived the plane closer to them than it actually was. A common observational error among eyewitnesses.

 

[Mangoose]

Talking of tooth fairies, have you dug out any SOC witnesses yet?

We've already mentioned Morin about a dozen times in this thread so far. But since you have a penchant for denial, you have not bothered to explain how Morin was able to see the things he describes if he were not a SOC witness. Forget tooth faires, how about witnesses with super powers?