8 out of 8 at Citgo station

[beachnut]

...
Roosevelt Roberts saw a jet AFTER the explosion.

...

Wow, now you can go get a Pulitzer Prize. Have you taken this to the FBI or are you hiding evidence. It is a crime to keep this from the FBI since in your mind it proves something.

It proves you are gullible! lol


Roberts has no clue what happen on 911 after 5 years. The only plane close to the Pentagon after 77 impacted was the C-130 exactly where Roberts saw it. Jet, he failed to identify a C-130, but the C-130 has a jet engine running the props, so he is more than half right.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/propulsion/q0135b.shtml

You are so gullible! Go ahead make my day go to the police with your Pulitzer prize delusions! You are spamming woo debunked over 8 years ago.

Go to the police now, take your evidence to them, or you are just spamming lies and moronic delusions because you are gullible. Let me know what they say. Hurry, it has only been 8 years for your moronic delusions, they might start rotting and smell up the place.

 

[DGM]

Paik and Morin witnessed the plane´s initial crossing of the Annex.
Paik has it at an angle. Morin was in between the wings and would have found the plane´s exact trajectory VERY difficult to ascertain, apart from the FACT that the body of the plane passed over his head.
All the ANC workers including Middleton described the plane as approaching the ANC carpark.
Given that Middleton saw the plane arrive as it passed over towards the righthand side of the Annex, the speed, and the plane´s sudden entrance onto the scene, this would be a reasonable assumption given the circumstances.
He would NEVER have seen the plane or ´felt the heat´ of the engines had it passed through the Official Path.

If you wouldn't mind, could you draw out a flight path that satisfies all three people I mentioned (Paik, Morin and Middleton)? What you describe here has the plane doing amazing things (or not conforming to their reports).

 

[funk de fino]

It's funny they ignore the fact the witness debunk the too high to hit nonsense from PFT and those other morons.

 

[Mangoose]

Roosevelt Roberts saw a jet AFTER the explosion.

He also says it was over the South Parking Lot about ten seconds after the explosion. Riiiight.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Just so that it's out on the ropes... if the practice of leaving out 4/5 of the total witness testimony, and deliberately ignoring all of the physical evidence were tried as a prosecution case in court it would be the effective equivalent of purgery; it's enough to kill the case before it even leaves the ground. Not another single line of argument is required beyond that point, and most of CIT's backers don't understand the legal implications of treating evidence in the fashion they've been doing. Amateurish investigation doesn't cut it, nor does intentional data mining or unabashed bias in the witness testimony collection. Not worth the time.

 

[BCR]

Any honest skeptics reading this thread KNOW who the real liars are.

Yep

 

[twinstead]

Just so that it's out on the ropes... if the practice of leaving out 4/5 of the total witness testimony, and deliberately ignoring all of the physical evidence were tried as a prosecution case in court it would be the effective equivalent of purgery; it's enough to kill the case before it even leaves the ground. Not another single line of argument is required beyond that point, and most of CIT's backers don't understand the legal implications of treating evidence in the fashion they've been doing. Amateurish investigation doesn't cut it, nor does intentional data mining or unabashed bias in the witness testimony collection. Not worth the time.

That said, I would PAY to see CIT have their day in court. Of course, when they get booted out of court it will mean the court system is in on it.

 

[jhunter1163]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3966936#post3966936

This little gem from R. Mackey bears repeating in any CIT thread.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Of course he does. He can't identify any specific topography or obstacle that would present a problem for my calculations, but not having a leg to stand on isn't going to slow you guys.

Take it up with him here.

That video is an excerpt from a video that has been thoroughly debunked in references already cited:
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/will/Music/Jokes/Balsamo/balsamo2.html
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/will/Music/Jokes/Balsamo/Software/

How can PFT describe a ´specific path´?? Now you are nitpicking and asking the impossible.

You're right. PfT can't describe any specific path that supports your fantasy or theirs.


On the other hand, BCR's specific path is consistent with most eyewitness accounts, with all of the physical evidence, and with the flight data recorder:
http://zoesflight.com/files/model.jpg

Roosevelt Roberts saw a plane AFTER the explosion.

So did I. In fact, I saw a plane in a television commercial just a few minutes ago.

There were a couple of planes that flew above Washington DC within minutes of the explosion. We know what they were, and we know their pilots. You have been dismissing their pilots' testimony, while citing witness accounts of those planes as though they supported your fantasy. Sounds like a double standard to me, which is one of the nicer things that can be said of your approach to evidence.

 

[mudlark]

Wouldn't this put it behind Paik's garage and out of sight of Morin?

He was interviewed by CIT here

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1904445818116873233#

On asked by Craig ranke where he saw the plane coming from..

37:15
¨from in between what´s that..the Hilton (Sheraton) and the
Navy Annex and he started dropping¨

Corresponds with Morin´s assertion that he saw the plane ´slightly nose down´ OVER the Annex and with Ed Paik who has the ´body over here´, pointing in a diagonal motion over the Annex.

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

 

[mudlark]

Originally Posted by mudlark

We have the right to know just how many samples were ´found´ when the FBI took over on 21st September after such an extensive combing of the area and just exactly WHICH remains they ´recovered´ after the initial 70% of ´body parts´ were identified. This is crucial.

no,, you don't

We have to rely on the ´word´ of the government on the DNA and plane parts?
Got it.

 

[mudlark]

OK, you obviously don't like my analogy. Could you answer the direct question that closed my post?

ETA - actually, in your analogy, YES. The witnesses are likely wrong. Does this surprise you? Why do you say "the police's word" alone? What's wrong with the police and their evidence technicians and the physical evidence and most of the witnesses?

Because the documented official evidence has not been made public.
The FBI admitted that they had no documentation on plane parts.
If the suspect has control of the evidence and withholds it then the case is severely biased no?

You may be happy taking their word, I´m not based on this corraborrated evidence.

´Most witnesses´ are unconfirmed media reports which also would be thrown out of a court of law. Many of the media accounts even contradict the official narrative.

The NOC witnesses
At least 10 Annex flyover witnesses (not including the 6 NOC witnesses who saw the plane fly over the Annex)
9 witnesses who describe a ´right-bank´ (not including the same 6 NOC witnesses)
One witness who claimed both then and now that he saw a ´commercial jet´ ´AFTER the explosion hit´.
We are talking about more than 30 witnesses. 13 of which have been confirmed by CIT.
Are you seriously saying that they ALL should be ignored?

 

[mudlark]

Wow, now you can go get a Pulitzer Prize. Have you taken this to the FBI or are you hiding evidence. It is a crime to keep this from the FBI since in your mind it proves something.

It proves you are gullible! lol


Roberts has no clue what happen on 911 after 5 years. The only plane close to the Pentagon after 77 impacted was the C-130 exactly where Roberts saw it. Jet, he failed to identify a C-130, but the C-130 has a jet engine running the props, so he is more than half right.

Wow that is PATHETIC!
He saw two of the four engines on the C130 so he was half right? LMAO.
´Exactly where Roberts saw it´?

Roosevelt interview.

Roosevelt: I was in south parking, and I was at the east loading dock when I ran outside and saw the low-flying aircraft above the parking lot.

Aldo: So you- you heard the explosion and ten seconds later you were outside and you were able to see that plane?

Roosevelt: Correct. You could see that plane just as clear as day. Couldn't miss it.

Aldo: .... but you saw it over the south parking lot.

Roosevelt: Right; around the lane one area, and it was like banking just above the, uh, light poles like.

(...)


Roosevelt: Had to been no more than- had to been no more than fifty feet or less than a hundred feet.

Aldo: Got it. Got it. And you're, you're- are you a hundred percent sure it was a jet: an actual jet plane?

Roosevelt: Commercial aircraft.

He also says that he saw the ´commercial aircraft...10 seconds tops´ after the explosion.

The C130 didn´t arrive on the scene until minutes after as shown in this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXj066J4JUQ&feature=related

The plane is at least 800-1000ft agl and is nowhere near the South Parking lot.

Weak, weak, weak. (Read desperate)

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/propulsion/q0135b.shtml

You are so gullible! Go ahead make my day go to the police with your Pulitzer prize delusions! You are spamming woo debunked over 8 years ago.

Go to the police now, take your evidence to them, or you are just spamming lies and moronic delusions because you are gullible. Let me know what they say. Hurry, it has only been 8 years for your moronic delusions, they might start rotting and smell up the place.

Any honest person reading this thread will know who has repeatedly lied Beachnut.

 

[mudlark]

He also says it was over the South Parking Lot about ten seconds after the explosion. Riiiight.

Not true. When pressed for exact timing he said "ten seconds tops".

Ten seconds "tops" could be 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, etc, seconds.

But it can not be 2 or 3 minutes which is when the next plane (C-130) arrived.

It's amazing how you require the witnesses to be completely infallible when it comes to the flyover or the north side but you are willing to accept a massively unreasonable margin of error when it comes to their claims in relation to the official story.

Are you accusing Roosevelt of lying or hallucinating or do you really think a commercial jet airliner with "jet engines" that was "just above the light poles" 10 seconds "tops" after the explosion could possibly be a description of the C-130?

 

[mudlark]

Sorry mods for the combo posting but there are so many posts to reply to

That video is an excerpt from a video that has been thoroughly debunked in references already cited:
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/will/Music/Jokes/Balsamo/balsamo2.html
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/will/Music/Jokes/Balsamo/Software/

Extract from one of those ´papers´

As mentioned previously, the flight data recorder found inside the Pentagon appeared to be missing its last 4-8 seconds of data. This had been one of the minor technical mysteries associated with the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001.

That mystery has been solved by an Australian computer scientist/programmer named Warren Stutt. Working on his own as an unofficial and independent investigator, Stutt decided to take a fresh look at the raw binary data from the flight data recorder (FDR). After studying over 600 pages of mind-numbing technical documentation, and writing his own software to decompress/decode that data, Stutt succeeded in recovering four more seconds at the end of the FDR data. These last seconds were from an incomplete data frame with bad parity, which may explain why previous software had failed to recover them.

Warren Stutt´s work has been approved and verified by who exactly?
Does the NTSB know that there are serious problems with their FDR software that would render the information gleaned from future plane crashes useless as the last ´4-8 seconds´ are critical in these types of investigations?
Rob Balsamo has sent a copy of the program to the NTSB and relevant agencies to check the veracity of it.
I wouldn´t get too excited until the results are in.

Again, your other paper has serious problems with it in that you fail to take topography and obstacles into account.
Grow some balls and go discuss it over at PFT.

You're right. PfT can't describe any specific path that supports your fantasy or theirs.

You were demanding an EXACT flightpath and all the parameters with it from witness testimony.

On the other hand, BCR's specific path is consistent with most eyewitness accounts, with all of the physical evidence, and with the flight data recorder:
http://zoesflight.com/files/model.jpg

Yeah, just keep repeating that lie. NOBODY is on record anywhere as seeing anything regarding that ficticious flightpath.

Originally Posted by mudlark
Roosevelt Roberts saw a plane AFTER the explosion.

So did I. In fact, I saw a plane in a television commercial just a few minutes ago.

There were a couple of planes that flew above Washington DC within minutes of the explosion. We know what they were, and we know their pilots. You have been dismissing their pilots' testimony, while citing witness accounts of those planes as though they supported your fantasy. Sounds like a double standard to me, which is one of the nicer things that can be said of your approach to evidence.
[/QUOTE]

Again, he claims to have seen a ´commercial aircraft´ ´50-100ft agl´ ´just above the lightpoles´ ´in lane one of South Parking´ ´10 seconds tops´ AFTER the explosion.
None of the other planes you mention was anywhere near fitting this description. And you know it.

I have not dismissed the C130 pilot´s testimony.
It has been repeatedly claimed that he ´witnessed the impact´

"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."
-Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien

MY approach to evidence? This thread has a continual barrage of lies repeated ad infinitum from you guys. Lies which I have repeatedly debunked and put straight yet crop up again and again such as the C130 fantasy and twisting of my argument you have just engaged in.

 

[carlitos]

Because the documented official evidence has not been made public.
The FBI admitted that they had no documentation on plane parts.
If the suspect has control of the evidence and withholds it then the case is severely biased no?

You may be happy taking their word, I´m not based on this corraborrated evidence.

´Most witnesses´ are unconfirmed media reports which also would be thrown out of a court of law. Many of the media accounts even contradict the official narrative.

The NOC witnesses
At least 10 Annex flyover witnesses (not including the 6 NOC witnesses who saw the plane fly over the Annex)
9 witnesses who describe a ´right-bank´ (not including the same 6 NOC witnesses)
One witness who claimed both then and now that he saw a ´commercial jet´ ´AFTER the explosion hit´.
We are talking about more than 30 witnesses. 13 of which have been confirmed by CIT.
Are you seriously saying that they ALL should be ignored?

I don't recall where I said that any witnesses should be ignored.OK, I think that I can presume the answer, but for some reason, you won't actually answer. Seriously, bro, YES or NO. It seems pretty simple. Here is the question that I asked.

So, when I ask - are you ignoring all of the other evidence, because of these few witnesses, your answer is:

yes

no

?

Last point - How did the FBI become the "suspect?"

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Again, your other paper has serious problems with it in that you fail to take topography and obstacles into account.

Neither you nor Balsamo can identify any specific topography or obstacle that would present a problem for my calculations. I've noted that before. If you had a leg to stand on, you wouldn't be so lame.

Yeah, just keep repeating that lie. NOBODY is on record anywhere as seeing anything regarding that ficticious flightpath.

Here's the flightpath to which you refer: http://zoesflight.com/files/model.jpg

Again, he claims to have seen a ´commercial aircraft´ ´50-100ft agl´ ´just above the lightpoles´ ´in lane one of South Parking´ ´10 seconds tops´ AFTER the explosion.
None of the other planes you mention was anywhere near fitting this description. And you know it.

Here's what I know and can prove from his account as recorded on 30 November 2001, when his memories were still reasonably fresh:
http://memory.loc.gov/service/afc/afc2001015/sr/sr348a01.mp3
After stating that "the plane hit the building", he then refers to "another plane flying around the south parking lot" (my emphasis) a short time later. He clearly understands that the plane he saw after the impact was not the plane that hit the Pentagon. He does not refer to it as a "commercial aircraft", nor does he say it was low-flying. He also gets the time of impact wrong, and eventually mentions two F-16s flying around the south parking lot some time later.

MY approach to evidence? This thread has a continual barrage of lies repeated ad infinitum from you guys. Lies which I have repeatedly debunked and put straight yet crop up again and again such as the C130 fantasy and twisting of my argument you have just engaged in.

None of us can top the highlighted lie you told above.

 

[beachnut]

Warren Stutt´s work has been approved and verified by who exactly?
Does the NTSB know that there are serious problems with their FDR software that would render the information gleaned from future plane crashes useless as the last ´4-8 seconds´ are critical in these types of investigations?
Rob Balsamo has sent a copy of the program to the NTSB and relevant agencies to check the veracity of it.
I wouldn´t get too excited until the results are in.

...

All the CIT witnesses point to the real flight path verified by RADAR and FDR, downed lampposts and impact at the Pentagon of a 757 known as Flight 77. If you had real evidence you would be famous and have a Pulitzer Prize (look up Watergate).

Warren's work is verified by the NTSB and p4t failed pilot club who spew lies on 911. You would think Balsamo's 2,223 G failed calculation may precluded his group from decoding the FDR, but they stole software and decoded the RAW data, including values not even hooked up which read 0. So Warren's work is verified by Balsamo's group and the NTSB.

The NTSB has all the raw data so there is no missing seconds; only those who have no clue and spew lies. Why do you spew lies about 911?

Balsamo is not an airline pilot and he does not have a ATP from the FAA to fly left seat heavy jets with passengers. Not a single idea from Balsamo is correct or anything more than failed trash talk and delusions.

What did Boger say?

 

[twinstead]

We have to rely on the ´word´ of the government on the DNA and plane parts?
Got it.

This is your built-in circuit breaker to keep from having to even think about the physical evidence that blows your theory out of the water. Sure, if you simply ignore this evidence you can fantasize that you have a point--it's why this circuit breaker exists--but the dear readers of this and other threads aren't idiots.

Get some evidence that ANY of the physical evidence was planted or the DNA chain of custody was not properly followed--THEN and only THEN will you have a case.

 

[DGM]

He was interviewed by CIT here

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1904445818116873233#

On asked by Craig ranke where he saw the plane coming from..



Corresponds with Morin´s assertion that he saw the plane ´slightly nose down´ OVER the Annex and with Ed Paik who has the ´body over here´, pointing in a diagonal motion over the Annex.

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

Listen to all three and draw a path. Large airplanes don't do acrobatics.