8 out of 8 at Citgo station

[The Big Dog]

Six posts in seven minutes! It seems like Craig Aldo Mudlark has been very busy!

 

[Meed]

I will post a reply later on these witness examples.

You need to read the thread again. Many of these testimonies were recorded
within weeks and months of 9/11 through CMH interviews. They all confirmed their testimony to CIT. The plane flew over the Annex and NOC in both sets of testimony.

The fact is that regardless of whether CIT supplemented their research with older interviews, they relied to some extent on their own interviews (hand pointing motions, Lloyd, etc).

Also, "within weeks and months" is still plenty of time for memory to go screwy on the details.

You should also know that the way in which questions are asked can have a significant effect on the resulting answers (even though they are thought to come purely from memory). This raises even more questions about CIT's interviews.

I can accept that if we ignore CIT, you still have some witness testimony to work with. That testimony is still highly problematic, but not quite as bad.

Fallibility becomes an issue when discussing minor details such as colour, description, etc. NOT the sight of a bigass plane flying towards your position

Seeing the plane: unlikely to be an issue (albeit certainly possible)
Speed of plane: yes
Size of plane: yes
Direction/motion of plane: yes
Where "your position" actually was: yes
Distance/height of plane: yes

"In July 1977 Flying magazine reported the fatal crash of a small plane that killed all eight people aboard and one person who was on the ground. Sixty eyewitnesses were interviewed, and two eyewitnesses who had actually seen the airplane just before the impact testified at a hearing to investigate the accident. The plane, one of the eyewitnesses explained, "was heading right toward the ground--straight down." This witness apparently did not know that several photographs clearly showed that the airplane hit flat and at a low-enough angle to skid for almost one thousand feet.
To be mistaken about details is not the result of a bad memory but of the normal functioning of human memory. When we want to remember something, we don't simply pluck a whole memory intact from a "memory store." The memory is actually constructed from stored and available bits of information; we unconsciously fill in any gaps in the information with inferences. When all the fragments are integrated into a whole that makes sense, they form what we call a memory."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dna/photos/eye/text_06.html

or just over your head and having specific reference points such as buildings.
AND especially if you have worked in the area for years and are very familiar with the surroundings. That argument doesn´t apply here.

"A few years ago a painful scene occurred in Berlin, in the University Seminary of Professor von Liszt, the famous criminologist. The Professor had spoken about a book. One of the older students suddenly shouts, "I wanted to throw light on the matter from the standpoint of Christian morality!" Another student throws in, "I cannot stand that!" The first starts up, exclaiming, "You have insulted me!" The second clenches his fist and cries, "If you say another word ____" The first draws a revolver. The second rushes madly upon him. The Professor steps between them and, as he grasps the man's arm, the revolver goes off. General uproar. In that moment Professor Liszt secures order and asks a part of the students to write an exact account of all that has happened. The whole had been a comedy, carefully planned and rehearsed by the three actors for the purpose of studying the exactitude of observation and recollection. Those who did not write the report at once were, part of them, asked to write it the next day or a week later; and others had to depose their observations under cross-examination. The whole objective performance was cut up into fourteen little parts which referred partly to actions, partly to words. As mistakes there were counted the omissions, the wrong additions and alterations. The smallest number of mistakes gave twenty-six percent of erroneous statements; the largest was eighty percent. The reports with reference to the second half of the performance, which was more strongly emotional, gave an average of fiteen percent more mistakes than those of the first half. Words were put into the mouths of men who had been silent spectators during the whole short episode; actions were attributed to the chief participants of which not the slightest trace existed; and essential parts of the tragi-comedy were completely eliminated from the memory of a number of witnesses. "
Loftus, E. (1996) Eyewitness Testimony, p 21.
http://books.google.com/books?id=uB...e=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Who is talking about a ´missile´??
If I were give an explanation as to the ´reason why´ they did it, it would just be speculation. NOC is irreconcilable with an impact. That´s the bottom line.

Okay, let's just say a source of the explosion that was not the plane.

It hurts your argument if there is no plausible explanation, even if it's just speculation.

You say NOC and impact are irreconcilable. Assuming for the moment that you are correct, that means there was either a NOC flightpath or an impact (or neither). In order to determine which is most likely we need to weigh the evidence for each and see which is stronger. Plausibility factors into this as well to some extent.

Evidence for NOC: (if I'm missing something I apologize)
-eyewitness testimony regarding plane position and direction, and self position
Evidence for impact:
-eyewitness testimony regarding plane flying into pentagon
-physical evidence of pentagon damage consistent with impact
-evidence of plane remains at site of crash
-DNA evidence of dead passengers
-RADES data
-no evidence of explosive devises or other mechanisms for how the damage could have been caused
-plausible explanation of execution and motive

If NOC is irreconcilable with an impact, then the evidence for the impact implies that NOC didn't happen.

Even if we look at eyewitness evidence alone (which we shouldn't), the evidence is stronger for an impact. Why? Because it's less likely for someone to falsely remember a plane crash than the position/direction of a plane before a plane crash. Recall the 1977 plane crash. The witnesses had no difficulty remembering that the plane had crashed and hit the ground. But the way it was flying beforehand? Not remembered well at all.

All 911 calls and transmissions were sequestered and are STILL unavailable to this day from the Arlington area on 9/11. We have by no means received ALL witness testimony.

Yes, of course. But there are a couple to a few hundred witness statements on record and other people are free to speak out.

Roosevelt Roberts saw a jet AFTER the explosion.

Still not a flyover. And from an interview taken 7 years after the event.

Before the disinfo starts from others that this ´jet´ may have been the C130..
The C130 didn´t arrive on the scene until minutes after.

So? People are bad at remembering time intervals. If you want more case studies I can provide them. He could have easily seen it a couple minutes after the explosion and seven years later remembered it as about "ten seconds".

Maria de la Cerda thought the plane ´hit the other side´ of the Pentagon.

Erik Dihle said that he heard others claim that a plane had dropped a bomb and ´flew on´

Don't have audio right now, but I can review these later. From what I've heard about these witnesses, I'm not expecting much, to be honest.

 

[BCR]

The FBI admitted that they had no documentation on plane parts.

No, that is NOT what they said.

On January 23, 2008, Plaintiff filed this action seeking access to: agency records, concerning documentation revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from the aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant

The FOIA was not about serial numbers, but documents relating to the identification process. I have FOIA's for the serial numbers and recovered debris. The FBI claims a law enforcement exemption in regards to those because it is an ongoing criminal matter (been keeping up with the news of KSM's pending trial?).

Keep it honest...

 

[A W Smith]

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

Did you leave something behind Mudlark?

ABSTRACT: The Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory (AFDIL) is one of the leading laboratories in the
world for the processing of degraded skeletal remains. Extended efforts have been made to develop protocols and
standards that will hold up to the intense scrutiny of both the scientific world and the U.S. legal system.

So how is CIT's legal case going? Do you remember? CIT was going to bring their "Evidence" before prosecutors? Perhaps CIT's "Evidence" wont stand up to protocols and standards that will hold up to the intense scrutiny of both the scientific world and the U.S. legal system ????. Better to make a third generation YouTube video?

Listen "Mudlark" or whoever the **** you are. Your ******** "evidence" wont stand the test of legitimate evidence in any court of law. You know that, Craig knows that, Aldo knows that. Any attempt to move forward in a court of law and you will have your clock cleaned by a judge and laughed out of court. So you play your little game within the safety of obscure internet forums and you tube videos. Hoping to gather a following of tweens, malcontents, and foreign America haters to fill your clubhouse. When you find that you are not gaining followers. You come over here to do damage control. And continue to get your ass handed to you. Your alleged NOC fly around is not physically possible. End of story.

 

[jaydeehess]

Mudlark----

Well I have asked you at least twice (ETA: this makes three times)how Middleton's description and drawing could allow Morin, and several other witnesses, to even be able to see the aircraft at all and yet you cannot seem to get around to explaining that.

If Morin saw the a/c then it was not north of the Navy Annex. If Paik saw the a/c then its behind his shop, not in front of it.

that means Middleton is wrong, or Morin and Paik are utterly confused as to even their own whereabouts on 911(or perhaps lieing gov't shills), Given that its more likely that Middleton is incorrect in his placement of the a/c all we can say for sure is that the a/c was along a path where Middleton could see it. As explained above, geometry illustrates how witnesses can get such distances wrong.

.

DGM also asked the same question re: Middleton's placement of the flightpath. You even quoted DGM's question in a post. Why you quoted DGM asking this is unclear since you have yet to address it.

MORIN: WHEN THE PLANE WENT RIGHT OVER THE TOP OF ME I WAS WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE EDGE OF THE WING (OF THE ANNEX)

In other words, had Morin continued walking for another ten feet he would have been out from between the wings of the Annex. Yet the CiT puts his flight path not along that edge of the building but instead well to the north, past the center connector of the Annex building. Morin was not facing north when he saw the plane AND describes it as over his head. If we take him lterally then the port wing of the a/c was not over the Annex, it was over Columbia Pike.

This puts it several hundred feet south of the path that Middleton describes.
Morin could not have seen the a/c if it had flown the path Middleton describes.

Paik also is describing a path that is wholly inconsistent with Middleton's account.

Reconcile these two witness accounts with Middleton's if you are going to continue to give weight to accounts that put the a/c that far north.

Geometry illustrates how the ANC witnesses could be mistaken about the distance between them and the a/c, and thus how they put the path more to the north. However, nothing can explain how two men looking in a southery direction (as were the ANC witnesses) could see an a/c to their north and certainly does not explain how Morin could see an a/c hidden by the bulk of the Annex builing.

 

[Thunder]

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

it doesn't require much thought to deny EVERYTHING said by every govt. employee.

but it does require a great deal of paranoia.

 

[jaydeehess]

question for anyone

How high is the Navy Annex?

Also, there is a central connector running the length of this structure separating north and south sides of the buildin. Does this corridor extend to the full height of the building?

 

[BCR]

How high is the Navy Annex?

Also, there is a central connector running the length of this structure separating north and south sides of the buildin. Does this corridor extend to the full height of the building?

It is 4 stories tall, so 40-45 would be a good estimate. Are you talking about the north facade (yes it is the same height) or the walk-overs?

 

[Mangoose]

Something just occurred to me. Craig and Aldo had all those early "CIT witnesses" mark out the flight path they recall on aerial and satellite images, signing the image with their name. Yet I haven't seen anything like this presented for their recent Morin interview. Why not? Craig interviewed him face-to-face IIRC. What he tells him in his interview can only describe a "SOC flight path" (albeit not identical to the actual flight path), and since Morin made a special point of the trees blocking his view I would have to think that this would have been represented in his satellite image marking, and would have thus flatly contradicted the kind of misrepresentation of Morin found in MorinPOV2.gif.

 

[jaydeehess]

It is 4 stories tall, so 40-45 would be a good estimate. Are you talking about the north facade (yes it is the same height) or the walk-overs?

Not the north facade, so, yes, the walkovers. Do connect all 4 levels, i.e. would the roof of the walk over also be 40-45 feet high?

Using only the north facade a little simple math indicates that the minimum altitude above Morin's elevation that he could see any object over Patton Drive would be approx 90 feet. If the walkover is 40 feet high then the lowest altitude that Morin could see an a/c would be 175 feet higher than Morin's own shoes. IIRC Patton drive itself is lower than the ground Morin was standing on. So how high did Middleton say the plane was above Patton?

Of course Morin would have to be facing north anyway, to see a plane over Patton. In such a case he is looking up at an angle of under 10 degrees. He says the plane was (a) over him and (B) that he was ten feet from being out from between the wings of the Annex. Well the plane is approx 100 feet wide, meaning that if he is dead on directly below the centerline of the a/c then 40 feet of the port wing is not over the Annex AND south of his position. He was, at best, looking straight up and , more likely, looking to the south.

If Middleton is correct then Morin is describing a plane as right over top of him, that he is seeing 650 feet to the north at an angle of less than ten degrees above the horizontal. That does not make sense!

Paik too is several hundred feet south of Middleton's line and yet he too describes a plane, and points, that is at a high angle at his POV while he faces south.

Still waiting to hear how Middleton's account reconciles with these two other accounts.

 

[jaydeehess]

Can't seem to 'forget' that so many witnesses say that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon either, Boger, and Brooks among them.
In fact didn't Middleton say it as well?

Seems to me that of all the details in all the eyewitness accounts, this one is the single most common point of convergence and thus, by the CiT standard of corroboration it is the single most 'proven' point.

How is it that the CiT discard this point for each and every witness? Why the CiT simply makes up another story. Boger is lieing and in fact ducked before the plane pulled up (well he only starts lieing at that point, everything he says up to there is not only true, but also precise and accurate), Brooks was fooled by the fireball into thinking the plane, that was actually higher than the Pentagon roof, hit the building(other than that his account is precise and accurate). Others are shills, agents or outright liars.

 

[Meed]

How is it that the CiT discard this point for each and every witness? Why the CiT simply makes up another story. Boger is lieing and in fact ducked before the plane pulled up (well he only starts lieing at that point, everything he says up to there is not only true, but also precise and accurate), Brooks was fooled by the fireball into thinking the plane, that was actually higher than the Pentagon roof, hit the building(other than that his account is precise and accurate). Others are shills, agents or outright liars.

It seems they have this extremely naive view of witness testimony when it comes to anything that supports their theory, attributing almost godlike memory and perception to these witnesses. "This guy is an aviator and he says the plane was going 380 knots! That refutes the official story that it was going 460 knots." And they use phrases regarding the testimony like it "irrefutably proves _____".

Yet when it comes to anyone seeing something that goes against their theory they are lying or they were just confused and thought they saw something they didn't.

I remember when I was a little kid in 2nd or third grade one of my friends and I would always create these fictions with each other. Like we'd go around the neighborhood and pretend a gang was chasing us and interpret everything as evidence for it. Neither of us would believe it, but we'd act like we did with no official agreement to pretend, even days later. Sometimes, if it was something good like pirate treasure buried on the beach, I would trick myself into half believing it myself. That is exactly what CIT reminds me of, especially when they're talking to Lloyd.

 

[nicepants]

I thought that Carlitos asked mudlark an excellent question (which has still gone unanswered).

What percent weight would you give to the various forms of evidence for the Pentagon/flight 77 on 9/11/01?

Here is mine. I'm not a detective, so if some of these are miscategorized, feel free to correct them.

• 20% Physical evidence (building damage)
• 50% Forensic evidence (passenger/crew DNA, plane parts)
• 20% Documentary evidence (radar, phone calls, missing plane and passengers)
• 10% Eyewitness testimony (ALL the witnesses, not just the 13 CIT found)

 

[CompusMentus]

I thought that Carlitos asked mudlark an excellent question (which has still gone unanswered).

You are right, the question is excellently constructed and fairly put. I would like to see the CIT adherents tackle it.

What percent weight would you give to the various forms of evidence for the Pentagon/flight 77 on 9/11/01?

Here is mine. I'm not a detective, so if some of these are miscategorized, feel free to correct them.

• 20% Physical evidence (building damage)
• 50% Forensic evidence (passenger/crew DNA, plane parts)
• 20% Documentary evidence (radar, phone calls, missing plane and passengers)
• 10% Eyewitness testimony (ALL the witnesses, not just the 13 CIT found)

It seems to me that you are relying on a small percentage of eyewitnesses, and you don't count the other types of evidence. Is this accurate?

C'mon mud....give it a bash.

Compus

 

[Spektator]

(snippy snip) The whole had been a comedy, carefully planned and rehearsed by the three actors for the purpose of studying the exactitude of observation and recollection.(snip)

Good post and excellent points, but--the whole thing had been a comedy? No. This is a comedy:

Professor: ....and so the point is--

Older student (leaping up): I want to discuss the matter from the standpoint of Christian orthodoxy!

Second student (leaping up): Shut up you knucklehead! (eyejabs the older student)

Third student (leaping up): Oh, a wise guy, eh? (bonks second student with a hammer and laughs) Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk!

Fourth student (leaping up): Oh, Mr. Professor, sir--may I go out for a drink?

Professor: To the water fountain?

Fourth student: No, sir. To the bar down the street.

Fifth student (Leaping up): Here's ANOTHER fine mess you've got us into!

Sixth student (Leaping up): Who's on first?

....and so on.

Come to think of it....looks like stuff that goes on in this forum.

 

[jaydeehess]

I thought that Carlitos asked mudlark an excellent question (which has still gone unanswered).

What percent weight would you give to the various forms of evidence for the Pentagon/flight 77 on 9/11/01?

Here is mine. I'm not a detective, so if some of these are miscategorized, feel free to correct them.

• 20% Physical evidence (building damage)
• 50% Forensic evidence (passenger/crew DNA, plane parts)
• 20% Documentary evidence (radar, phone calls, missing plane and passengers)
• 10% Eyewitness testimony (ALL the witnesses, not just the 13 CIT found)

It seems to me that you are relying on a small percentage of eyewitnesses, and you don't count the other types of evidence. Is this accurate?

I suspect, and I am probably not alone, that CiT and mudlark are loath to answer this, or the question I and DGM asked.

In the case of carlitos question a ranking of the evidence by CiT would force them to baldly state that they give 0% weight to the docuementary evidence and forensic evidence listed above and that they give little weight to most of the physicxal evidence found within the Pentagon and are relying almost exclusively on a small subset of all the eyewitness statements.

In the case of how to reconcile Middleton's path with Morin and other's statements they would be forced to accept that their subset of witnesses indeed do tell divergent accounts of where the plane was and thus open to door to other accounts that put the aircraft more to the south. they would be forced to accept that if Middleton is incorrect about how far to the south the plane was then the plane could very well have been over Columbia Pike or just to the south of it.

They claim that all their witnesses tell the same story but they indeed do not since some of them can be shown to be mutually exclusive.

Some investigative method

 

[Edx]

I remember when I was a little kid in 2nd or third grade one of my friends and I would always create these fictions with each other. Like we'd go around the neighborhood and pretend a gang was chasing us and interpret everything as evidence for it. Neither of us would believe it, but we'd act like we did with no official agreement to pretend, even days later. Sometimes, if it was something good like pirate treasure buried on the beach, I would trick myself into half believing it myself. That is exactly what CIT reminds me of, especially when they're talking to Lloyd.

hehe +1

 

[Horace Wheeljack]

I've been lurking on this thread and i was interested by Mongoose's observation that CIT haven't presented a drawing for Morin like the other witnesses. So I watched CITs presentation called 'Over the Navy Annex featuring Terry Morin'.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2649657158781568709#

It is completely dishonest of CIT to claim that Edward Paik and Terry Morin support a 'North of Citgo' approach. I will quote sections of dialogue from the video so you don't have to watch it.

Firstly, Edward Paik says at 1min36 'and the wings is this way' and points to Columbia Pike road. At 1min45 Paik again points to the road and says 'the wings is here'. At 1min58 Paik says 'wings is...wings is' and does a double hand gesture to stress how far across the road the wings are, finally Ranke suggests 'maybe across the road?' and Paik confirms 'over the road'. Then at 2min05 the narrator dishonestly says 'here is a reconstruction of what Ed describes' and shows a graphic of a plane flying completely over the navy annex. Its unbelievable! I understand that Paik's account has the plane flying along the edge of the Annex which is not the official path but CIT fraudulently try to twist his account to have him support the north of Citgo claim. It appears they are not even trying to hide their dishonesty.

Next is Terry Morin. This video could be used in training people in how not to do interviews. At 9min03 Morin is discussing the difficulty in estimating the speed the plane was travelling, he says 'shoot i'm getting older and I haven't flown in over twenty years...', Ranke then talks over the top of Morin and tries to get him to confirm his estimation rather than discuss the uncertainties he's allowing.

At 9min56 Ranke is asking Morin 'you're 100% certain that the plane is on the top of the navy annex' to which Morin replies 'he's on the edge of the navy annex, not completely over it, okay'. You can notice the tone in Morin's voice emphasise the word edge. Ranke then tries to desperately move away from the issue of the plane being over the edge of the annex with a 'but, but, but...'

At 10min21 Ranke is trying to get Morin to confirm that the entire plane was north of Columbia Pike and Morin says 'is the right wing hanging over a little bit? I mean there's only how much... [FONT=&quot]' [/FONT]Not surprisingly Ranke cuts off Morin here as he is about to allow the possibility that the wings were over Columbia Pike, Ranke diverts the question to the possibility that the plane was completely over the other side of Columbia Pike. Ranke was careful not to allow Morin speak as he is desperate to shoehorn him into supporting a north of Citgo claim which a plane flying along the edge of the Annex would forbid.

At 13min32 Morin is musing on the margins of error in his memory 'was the fuselage 3ft this way or 4ft that way or 20ft this way, you know...'. Ranke is again so keen to stop Morin discussing the possibility that the plane may have been flying over Columbia pike that he rambles something about the margins of error not allowing the plane to be south of columbia pike entirely to which Morin agrees.

At 15.27 Morin again says that the plane could be 20ft outside the edge of the annex which places the plane's right wings over Columbia Pike and make the North of Cigo approach impossible. As Morin's words are heard saying this CIT are showing a graphic of the plane completely over the annex, wings and all. It is quite incredible that they would release a video that shows their dishonestly so clearly.

All CIT have shown in this video is that Paik and Morin are south of Citgo witnessess.

 

[Childlike Empress]

I will quote sections of dialogue from the video so you don't have to watch it.

I posted that video many pages ago. I encourage everyone to read Horace Wheeljack's post and then watch the video.

Here's another CIT presentation, "Over the Navy Annex". It is 24 minutes long and most of it is a recorded conversation between Terry Morin and Craig Ranke. A very interesting conversation. It starts with Morin explaining how he was told not to talk to people because of "the conspiracy theories":

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

While you listen to Morin, remember that the controversy here is whether the plane was south of Columbia Pike on the "real/official" flightpath (and never crossed the road), or approached north of Columbia Pike, over the Navy Annex and between (the north side of) the gas station and Arlington Cemetary.

Remember also that the plane needed only 3-4 seconds to pass the area from Paik to the Pentagon if it was as fast as the "real/official" data has it.

Listen to Morin's comments on the speed of the plane.

Read Horace Wheeljack's post again.

Nuff said.

 

[Mangoose]

You see this treeline? As he starts to descend, he's 50 feet above this, and he descends, he basically starts to disappear, okay? And so the bottom of the airplane, and the engines disappear, the bottom of the fuselage, the wings, and so what I've got is a tail stabilizer, the ass-end of the airplane is all you can see and he comes down.

"You see this treeline?" Such phrasing suggests that Morin was in fact looking at an aerial or satellite image, and indicated how the treeline began to block his view on the plane. The same treeline Morin mentioned in his eyewitness report in 2001 as blocking his view of the plane. The same treeline that obscures the plane in Pfffft's mockup video of the "official south side flight path" from Morin's POV (http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/morinPOVsouth.gif). A treeline that would not have blocked the view of the plane at all if the plane was on a "NOC" path (in which case the Navy Annex itself would be what would be blocking Morin's view).