8 out of 8 at Citgo station

[beachnut]

Ya think so?

Who drew these impossible flight paths. The only correct path is a true track of 61.2 to 61.5 degrees proved by the FDR, verified by RADAR, seen by each and every witness. You lack knowledge and have no training in analyzing witness statements and you are so gullible you spew lies from morons known as CIT.

All the yellow flight paths are impossible and no one witnessed the flight paths draw over 5 years after 911. Sorry you are gullible and can't do a single thing to make your delusions true. Have you gone to the police or FBI yet? No because you don't do anything but repeat failed moronic lies from CIT.

Some of the paths you presented take over 50 Gs to do! IMPOSSIBLE! Are you able to do physics or you just post lies on purpose?

 

[jaydeehess]

What is clear is that NONE describe the SOC path.
All saw the plane over the Annex.
Paik points to NOC. Middleton WAS NOC.

Incorrect, Morin describes a path that can only be SoC and Paik describes an a/c that he thought may have clipped the VDOT tower. So both Paik and Morin are describing somethig that simply cannot be reconciled as a path that is consistent with what Middleton describes as his recollection of where the a/c was.

The CiT have consistently misrepresented Morin to the point of creating an utterly false senario compared to what Morin said.

Several witnesses said they saw the lampposts get hit, obviously not NoC.

Many witnesses, even among the 8 CiT 'stars', describe an aircarft that they saw hit the Pentagon and given that the damage path indicates a path that agrees with the commonly accepted flightpath this alone is enough to conclude that they are incorrect about a NOC path. (They saw it hit, the hit indicates a path other than what they recollect, thus their recollection of the path is incorrect)

 

[Childlike Empress]

no one witnessed the flight paths draw over 5 years after 911.

You lost it.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yeah I received your PM too.
I´ve tried to answer every post and NOT type two-line wonders like some.
Drop it.

Cool story, bro!

Did the calculations on that screwy path yet, champ?

 

[dropzone]

How do people ignore the FDR and RADAR data let alone the other physical evidence including the aircraft? I was in the USAF for 28 years, there were thousands of military on duty on 911 and we would all report immediately anything like planting evidence, fake junk, etc. You have to be a moron and not a skeptic to accept the conclusions of CIT.

No, you are all treasonous bastards who would ALL, EVERY LAST ONE OF YOU (note the emphasis), sell out your country because you were told to.

 

[BCR]

I have to take it on YOUR word that these documents exist?

No sir, just don't misrepresent what is said in the legal filing. The FOIA was for documents related to the process, not for serial number and parts lists. Credible reporting in the media, research by firefighters (Pat Creed) and others suggest that they do exist and the FBI has claimed law enforcement exemption on SPECIFIC requests for the documents. So without evidence suggesting that they don't....

And if you want the FOIA responses, you'll have to buy the book when it comes out. I am sure the publisher will want to include them in the documentation section.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

As I said, go discuss it with Balsamo.

Like you, Balsamo can only repeat the allegation. He can't back it up any more than you can. He proved that during our discussion over at ATS, while hiding behind his dishonest "R_Mackey" screen name.

Not having a leg to stand on won't slow you boys none, 'cause you ain't going nowhere.

Yes, this is the flightpath NOBODY witnessed.

Without any facts in your favor, you can only repeat that enormous lie. As several people have noted in this thread, two of CIT's very own cherry-picked witnesses testified to a south-of-Citgo flight path on CIT's own videos, despite CIT's best attempts to redirect those witnesses and to distract viewers from what they were saying. You and CIT have simply dismissed the many other witnesses to the south-of-Citgo flight path, including all those who saw the aircraft strike the light poles, referring to many of them as shills or liars.

Your fantasy appears identical to CIT's, as summarized here:

According to the Citzen Investigation Team, the Government or whomever wanted to fool the world into thinking American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, along a certain heading that took it through several light poles and low over the freeway just prior to impact.

To do this, They executed the following:

• They flew an aircraft over the Pentagon
• The aircraft traveled along a different heading entirely, on the opposite side of a visible landmark (viz. the Citgo station)
• The aircraft passed nowhere near the light poles in question
• The light poles were sabotaged anyway, in some completely different fashion than aircraft impact
• One light pole was staged to penetrate the windshield of a car, in traffic, again despite the actual aircraft not passing anywhere near overhead
• A large amount of explosives was detonated as the aircraft passed by
• The aircraft then flew away over the Pentagon, where it was allegedly sighted by at least one individual
• The explosion or whatever demolition carried out at the Pentagon left a hole far too small to have been caused by AA 77
• A readable flight data recorder (FDR) was planted (along with an insufficient amount of aircraft debris) that allegedly conflicts with both Their false story and the track of the actual aircraft

And, finally,

• The aircraft in question was deliberately painted so as to not even resemble an American Airlines jetliner.

I am reasonably certain that the above is the stupidest hypothesis ever conceived for any purpose, including parody, intentional humor, or even stress tests of human perception in psychological experiments.

 

[beachnut]

You lost it.

You use your failed opinions to form failed conclusions and support some idiotic conclusions made by morons. I won years ago when I first learned to fly, be an engineer, trained to investigate aircraft accidents, and all these things depend on being skeptical.

The flight paths drawn require bank angles not seen on 911 and you can't come up with the math as you use talk when you need numbers you can't produce to support the lies (those flight paths; which one is it) of CIT. It comes down to knowledge and evidence which you don't have.

Your list of evidence to support CIT; 1. (empty set)

CE, the CIT flight paths are not possible, so no one could have witnessed them; The real flight path of 61.2 to 61.5 degrees was the flight path seen. But go ahead which one is the real flight path? Make my day and support the one and only flight path all those CIT witnesses saw. Can't do it because of what major obstacle?

 

[carlitos]

ok, you won't answer my question, so here is another try

This is not a yes/no question.
It´s not a question of ´ignoring´ evidence. It´s wanting to see it.
NOT taking somebody´s word for it.

I have not personally seen the United States Constitution, complete with Bill of Rights. I have always meant to, I just never got around to it. And yet, I know that it exists.

I have not personally seen Mount Everest. I have done a little climbing, sure, walked about here and there. But I have never seen it. And yet, I know that it exists.

I was not born when man first landed on the moon. By complete coincidence, I was born on the day when man landed on the moon for the second time. I have no firsthand knowledge of the moon landing. And yet, I know that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin did indeed land on the moon.

Are there any other historical occurrences that you do not believe because you have not seen the evidence first hand, rather than "taking someone's word for it?"

ETA - forget your qualms about my first question. This one is for sure a yes / no. Are there, or aren't there, any other historical occurrences, that you do not believe because you have not seen the evidence first hand?

 

[Bobert]

Does the CIT even exist still?

 

[tsig]

Does the CIT even exist still?

Only in quote form.

 

[GlennB]

Yes, and he confirmed seeing this ´other´ plane ´10 seconds tops´

Mudlark - if a commercial jet flew over The Pentagon on any of those NoC flighpaths, can you work out how long it would take to circle round again to appear over the south parking lot?
Clue - much, much more than 10 seconds.
Problem - it would need to fly in a large loop, visible to millions, for absolutely no good reason.

I don't know whether you can step back from your (obviously) strongly held beliefs and picture something that challenges them, but try this one. Picture the plane in a 70° bank to make the NoC 'curve'. Picture it dramtically levelling up and climbing sharply. Then picture what happens to the plane after it climbs and 'flies over'. Picture it spending several minutes in a major banked loop to make it back to the south parking lot.

Then ask yourself why nobody witnessed anything even remotely resembling any of this.

 

[DGM]

What is clear is that NONE describe the SOC path.
.

So can I assume you agree that their statements place the plane on a wildly different flight path (from each other)? How do you justify that?

[cue] mudlark dancing around the obvious.

 

[Disbelief]

Until the full details and all evidence is on the table, such as the sequestered 911 calls, ALL the video evidence, plane part documentation, DNA chain of custody documentation, until the NTSB/FBI explain the discrepancies in the FDR data and specifically why NOBODY describes this flightpath all parties with control and access to this data/evidence must be considered a ´suspect´ until there is transparency.

Since basically all of the agencies that gather and process this information are suspect, who do you propose would determine validity? Is there to be a trial on whether the DNA chain of custody is valid or just a panel of experts? Who determines the make up of the panel, if that is the way you want to go?

 

[nicepants]

Childlike Empress-
I'm wondering if you could answer a question for me since you seem to be a pretty avid supporter of CIT...


Do you believe that, in the course of conducting interviews with eyewitnesses as Craig & Aldo did, asking the eyewitnesses leading questions would indicate a bias on the part of the interviewer?

I'd also be interested in your answer to the quoted question from Carlitos.

Mudlark - I'm not sure if you missed the question I reposted (#733) from Carlitos earlier but we still don't have your answer.

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)

 

[nicepants]

Until the full details and all evidence is on the table, such as the sequestered 911 calls, ALL the video evidence, plane part documentation, DNA chain of custody documentation, until the NTSB/FBI explain the discrepancies in the FDR data and specifically why NOBODY describes this flightpath all parties with control and access to this data/evidence must be considered a ´suspect´ until there is transparency.

Then I presume you also consider CIT to be a 'suspect' as well since they have not released their un-edited interview footage. They demand transparency from the FBI/NTSB/etc yet refuse to hold themselves to the same standard.

 

[911kongen]

Im just wondering, the nuts say there were 83 cams at pentagon. You know, filming the part the plane hit. This has to be wrong, are this cameras inside the pentagon? 83 cameras outside, filming the wall cant be right. So what source are the nuts using to say there are 83 cameras?

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

It’s about time the truth came out. The ‘Official Story’ is a lie. CIT and the ‘No Planers’ have been right all along. I have an American friend who is ex-CIA and is no longer in America for personal safety reasons. He has provided me with documents (which I no longer have) which explain the whole ‘attack’ on the Pentagon on Sep 11 2001. This is what happened, based on the documents he provided:

There was a passenger plane – that much is true, but the passenger manifests and the hi-jacking were all faked. A highly-skilled CIA pilot flew the (highly modified) plane towards DC and the Pentagon. Prior to Sep 11, under the cover of ‘renovation and repair work’, CIA operative installed boxes containing plane debris, body parts, chaff, and a homing beacon, against the walls at the proposed point of ‘impact’. Shaped charges were also fitted into the walls. On Sep 11, the CIA pilot flew the passenger plane along the trajectory which the homing beacon was sending, just prior to ‘impact’ he remotely triggered the shaped charges hidden in the Pentagon and executed a steep climb. The charges blew the walls out and in as planned, fake debris and body parts were scattered about and the chaff (written off as debris from the explosion) obfuscated the radar signal, giving the pilot time to pull up and away and become ‘lost’ in the confusion of the day. He later landed the plane at an undisclosed location.

Nobody saw the plane pull away as all eyes were on the explosion, and as people were expecting to see a plane impact the Pentagon, that is exactly what they saw. Exactly as planned by the perpetrators.

It looks like you were all wrong.

 

[twinstead]

Looks like the jig is up, boys

 

[TruthersLie]

These ´few witnesses´ you referred to..you DO know that they were in the immediate vicinity? They include ALL witnesses documented within the Pentagon lawn area. ALL witnesses within the NOC path. Anybody documented within the Navy Annex area.

YOu do know that eyewitness testimony is the WEAKEST form of evidence in a court of law right? You do realize that police and prosecutors HATE eye witness testimony because quite often it is WRONG/INACCURATE or INCOMPLETE, right?

This is not a yes/no question.
It´s not a question of ´ignoring´ evidence. It´s wanting to see it.
NOT taking somebody´s word for it.

So does that mean you do not believe that the great wall of china exists (if you haven't seen it or been there), or the eiffel tower, or the planet jupiter, or (I can do this all day)...

Until the full details and all evidence is on the table, such as the sequestered 911 calls, ALL the video evidence, plane part documentation, DNA chain of custody documentation, until the NTSB/FBI explain the discrepancies in the FDR data and specifically why NOBODY describes this flightpath all parties with control and access to this data/evidence must be considered a ´suspect´ until there is transparency.

Why? Please produce anything which calls into question the common narrative of 9/11. So far after 8 years, your failed movement has not been able to provide a single verifiable fact... lots of lies, delusions and outright falsehoods.

Until you can provide a complete narrative of what happened, you are just blowing smoke....