Calling all Boxcutter Conspiracy Theorists

The flight path of AA 77 crossed none of the poles in your picture, neither SoC nor NoC.

ETA: Noticed your edit. You´re changing the subjekt. I know that the damaged light poles are incompatible with a flight path NoC. But this was not the claim I responded to. I responded to this claim:



You were wrong about this, and I think you know it.

No line up the damage and the Capitol Building on an overhead map. Extending line southwest goes over ther bridge where Lloyd England's taxi was and to the south of Columbia Pike when it passes the Navy Annex. Pole no 1 went through the taxi window. The plane didn't take this route, therefore it was staged and Lloyd admitted as much on a camera he did not know was running.
 
Last edited:
I suspect if the CIT crew were really determined to prove their case based on eye witness's collective corroboration they would have sought out the testimony of all the people who witnessed the event that they could. Excusing their ignorance of other evidence based on the unproven assumption that everything was planted doesn't fly. The CIT crew has not got the point in the last few years, and I don't think they deserve the attention candy now because they felt it was a bright idea to repeat it for the one millionth time.
 
I suspect if the CIT crew were really determined to prove their case based on eye witness's collective corroboration they would have sought out the testimony of all the people who witnessed the event that they could. Excusing their ignorance of other evidence based on the unproven assumption that everything was planted doesn't fly. The CIT crew has not got the point in the last few years, and I don't think they deserve the attention candy now because they felt it was a bright idea to repeat it for the one millionth time.

And this is precisely what they did do

http://www.thepentacon.com/northsideflyover.htm"]The north side flyover
 
Last edited:
Yes Grizzly Bear, that's exactly what they did. Here's another "debunking" of the "Arabesque" article posted earlier. This one was written last July, two years after the original article, by a guy from the UK after request from author "Arabesque". It's well worth reading.

Arabesque stopped posting to his blog a month later and was not seen again afaik. During the last month of his activity he posted several responses to Stefan.

Stefan said:
This article is a response to Arabesque’s request that I explain in detail my counterpoints against his arguments in opposition to the research of the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT). Arabesque is not by any means the only person who has been involved in attempting to debunk CIT, but his arguments are the most commonly repeated, reworded, regurgitated and linked to, so I am happy to meet his request and address them.

What I hope to achieve from writing this article is to explain why I do not personally reject the testimony of the 13 members of the public who have been documented by CIT. This is not about CIT; they are just the camera men, the editors and commentators. This is about real people, real eye witnesses, and whether or not they deserve their testimony to be run roughshod over in protection of a pre-decided position on the issue of the Pentagon. I am not demanding everyone agree with me and respect everyone’s right to their own opinion, but what I hope will come as a side effect is that some of the people who are not so tolerant might at least question their sense of certainty that these 13 witnesses deserve to be dismissed out of hand.

I still hold the same position I have for many years on the Pentagon – that there is far less ambiguous and easier to understand campaigning material and while research should be supported it should not be centre-stage of our evidence promotion efforts. Some seem to have taken an extremist position that the case is closed with the Pentagon, the official story is essentially correct and everyone should join them in denouncing any Pentagon researchers or expect to be defamed and attacked alongside them. I am writing this now as things seem to be getting out of hand. Genuine venom is being stirred up not just against CIT themselves but also against any other person who does not denounce them in lock-step. Terms such as “cult”, “disinfo”, “an operation” and “shilling” are being thrown around with abandon.

How did this happen? What is the argument for rejecting these witnesses and is the evidence that supports it really strong enough to justify making such incendiary accusations? These are questions I hope to explore in this article.
 
roscoe the first, earlier in the thread you said you would conduct your own independent inquiry and report the results here upon its completion. How's that independent inquiry going so far? Anything to report yet, old chum?

now who's being delusional?

You are, clearly, old chum.

As for an independent inquiry - no problem at all. Please have at it, and report the results here.

Thanks we will, since you BCTs are now rapidly becoming a minority.
 
Statement from Penny Elgas
Personal Experience At The Pentagon on September 11, 2001
By Penny Elgas
http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/supporting.asp?ID=30&z=0

I had an early appointment on September 11th, so I drove to work later than usual. I work at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation near the White House. I headed north on 1-395 to DC from my home in Springfield, Virginia and I entered the highway a little after 9am so that I could take the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) express lane. As usual, traffic was very heavy and after I exited I-95, I found myself stuck in late morning rush hour traffic -- almost in front of the Pentagon. For most of my drive I had been totally focused on my radio and was extremely aware of the events that were unfolding in New York. Even though the radio reporters were cautious, I was already convinced from the first strike that it was not just an unfortunate pilot error. However, I felt that New York was under attack and I couldn't have imagined what would unfold in front of me.

Traffic was at a standstill. I heard a rumble, looked out my driver's side window and realized that I was looking at the nose of an airplane coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there- very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station that I never knew was there. My first thought was “Oh My God, this must be World War III!”

In that split second, my brain flooded with adrenaline and I watched everything play out in ultra slow motion, I saw the plane coming in slow motion toward my car and then it banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport. In the nano-second that the plane was directly over the cars in front of my car, the plane seemed to be not more than 80 feet off the ground and about 4-5 car lengths in front of me. It was far enough in front of me that I saw the end of the wing closest to me and the underside of the other wing as that other wing rocked slightly toward the ground. I remember recognizing it as an American Airlines plane -- I could see the windows and the color stripes. And I remember thinking that it was just like planes in which I had flown many times but at that point it never occurred to me that this might be a plane with passengers.

In my adrenaline-filled state of mind, I was overcome by my visual senses. The day had started out beautiful and sunny and I had driven to work with my car's sunroof open. I believe that I may have also had one or more car windows open because the traffic wasn't moving anyway. At the second that I saw the plane, my visual senses took over completely and I did not hear or feel anything -- not the roar of the plane, or wind force, or impact sounds.

The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again -- only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring. At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building. It was here that I closed my eyes for a moment and when I looked back, the entire area was awash in thick black smoke.
 
Last edited:
Uh, what kind of offense, you gotta cite for that?

/I know he doesn't have a cite for that.

I'll think about only when you come up with a citation.

You seem to be very short on citations.

What kind of car would that be then?

Wouldn't it be ironic if he drove one of these?

29zd8a0.jpg
 
They're not lying they genuinely think they saw the plane hit the building. Trouble is some of them couldn't have done because their vision towards the Pentagon was obstructed.

Lagasse for example couldn't see the Pentagon because of trees in the way.

But they are not lying when it comes to all of then seeing the plane approach from over the Navy Annex and to the north of the CITCO garage. If this is so then the plane could not have hit the five light poles and the Black box data is incorrect.

Ah. So they're confused. Except when they say what you want to hear. Much better. :rolleyes:
 
Ranke claims that he interviewed dozens of people. Yet only 13 or so are in their "evidence." I wonder why that might be.
 
Why is the debris often so "clean"?

That is a REALLY stupid question. Even for a twoofer.

So this debris is clean?
300px-Pentagondebris4.jpg


Oh look at this wreckage sparkle!
300px-Pentagon_landing_gear.jpg


The government definitely polished this piece before they planted it:
300px-P200030.jpg
 
Yes Grizzly Bear, that's exactly what they did. Here's another "debunking" of the "Arabesque" article posted earlier. This one was written last July, two years after the original article, by a guy from the UK after request from author "Arabesque". It's well worth reading.

Arabesque stopped posting to his blog a month later and was not seen again afaik. During the last month of his activity he posted several responses to Stefan.

There's more than 100 witnesses to the Pentagon attack and out of those CIT only interviewed thirteen (13) of them. They use the weakest form of evidence whose strength would come most efficiently from obtaining the collective testimony from the majority of these people, yet feel it's honest to cherry pick from a mere 13 of them. Then the group feels it honest based on selective sampling to make an unproven assertion that all of the physical evidence is planted, showing no interest in corroborating such a claim. Sorry, I don't buy the ignorance act coming from the group.
 
Statement from Penny Elgas
Personal Experience At The Pentagon on September 11, 2001
By Penny Elgas
http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/supporting.asp?ID=30&z=0

I had an early appointment on September 11th, so I drove to work later than usual. I work at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation near the White House. I headed north on 1-395 to DC from my home in Springfield, Virginia and I entered the highway a little after 9am so that I could take the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) express lane. As usual, traffic was very heavy and after I exited I-95, I found myself stuck in late morning rush hour traffic -- almost in front of the Pentagon. For most of my drive I had been totally focused on my radio and was extremely aware of the events that were unfolding in New York. Even though the radio reporters were cautious, I was already convinced from the first strike that it was not just an unfortunate pilot error. However, I felt that New York was under attack and I couldn't have imagined what would unfold in front of me.

Traffic was at a standstill. I heard a rumble, looked out my driver's side window and realized that I was looking at the nose of an airplane coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there- very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station that I never knew was there. My first thought was “Oh My God, this must be World War III!”

In that split second, my brain flooded with adrenaline and I watched everything play out in ultra slow motion, I saw the plane coming in slow motion toward my car and then it banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport. In the nano-second that the plane was directly over the cars in front of my car, the plane seemed to be not more than 80 feet off the ground and about 4-5 car lengths in front of me. It was far enough in front of me that I saw the end of the wing closest to me and the underside of the other wing as that other wing rocked slightly toward the ground. I remember recognizing it as an American Airlines plane -- I could see the windows and the color stripes. And I remember thinking that it was just like planes in which I had flown many times but at that point it never occurred to me that this might be a plane with passengers.

In my adrenaline-filled state of mind, I was overcome by my visual senses. The day had started out beautiful and sunny and I had driven to work with my car's sunroof open. I believe that I may have also had one or more car windows open because the traffic wasn't moving anyway. At the second that I saw the plane, my visual senses took over completely and I did not hear or feel anything -- not the roar of the plane, or wind force, or impact sounds.

The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again -- only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring. At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building. It was here that I closed my eyes for a moment and when I looked back, the entire area was awash in thick black smoke.

yes I read that one too.

Don't believe it.

Smoke ring? gimme a break?
 
yes and the day after he announced $2.3 trillion dollars unaccounted for the military budget came under review and was increased by Bush. Meanwhile all records of the missing money went up in smoke and has not been mentioned since.

Stop calling me a liar it is against forum rules. Unless of course I suspect that there's one rule for some but not others. This I intend to report back to the more open forums on the internet.

You tell lies. You get caugt telling lies. It is not against the rules to point this out. Why dont you tell us about your last quarterly tax bill?
 

Back
Top Bottom