NASA Engineer (ret.) is a Twoofie?

[Miragememories]

"An honest seeker of the truth cannot dismiss the logical conclusion that a north of Citgo flightpath means the fallen lightpoles had to have been planted evidence."

"Possibly the most idiotic thing you have posted and that is really saying something."

"Maybe you would like to explain how it is idiotic to believe Flight 77 could not be in two places at once?"

"The planted lightpoles is the most idiotic thing.

Unlike you I have the experience and training to know what I am talking about here. You don't. Even if I did explain it you would handwave it due to ignorance and blind faith."

I thought the question was easy. Even for you.

How could Flight 77 be on a north of Citgo flightpath and hit the lightpoles that existed in the south of Citgo flightpath?

This should be an easy question.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

Not what the video shows is it? It do not show a flyover. Something the CIT muppets studiously avoid

The Pentagon video shows a whole lot of nothing.

MM

 

[Pardalis]

Remove the north of the CITGO flightpath theory and everything else makes sense.

Keep the the north of the CITGO flightpath theory and you need to feed an ever increasingly complex and unbelievable story that only makes you look like a fool.

Your choice.

 

[DGM]

How could Flight 77 be on a north of Citgo flightpath and hit the lightpoles that existed in the south of Citgo flightpath?

This should be an easy question.

MM

It's simple, It couldn't be north of the Citgo. It goes against all the physical evidence. Next question.


Or are you going to show everyone there was "in on it"?

 

[The Big Dog]

I thought the question was easy. Even for you.

How could Flight 77 be on a north of Citgo flightpath and hit the lightpoles that existed in the south of Citgo flightpath?

This should be an easy question.

MM

Hee hee! Didn't Craig's see-saw analogy render this calculation moot?

More to the point, yeah, MM, it should be an easy question for you to answer.

Anyhow, how we coming with that raw video tape, No Planer? Time's a wasting

 

[Disbelief]

I thought the question was easy. Even for you.

How could Flight 77 be on a north of Citgo flightpath and hit the lightpoles that existed in the south of Citgo flightpath?

This should be an easy question.

MM

It wasn't on the north side of Citgo.

 

[Pardalis]

It's simple, It couldn't be north of the Citgo. It goes against all the physical evidence. Next question.

This^

 

[beachnut]

With all the barrage of questions and comments, I don't know which to respond to.

Post your ideas! Glad you did not fly, what would you do if you were barraged by questions, punch out?

So, I'll pick this one as is a good one on which to expand.

You picked the idiot claims of CIT. Now that is not good!

The ten witnesses testifying to a north flight path were each in an excellent physical position to testify to what they claim to have seen that turns out to be consistent with a flight path North of the Citco station.

Funny! In the videos, they point to the south. Worse! The FDR has not headings to support a north flight path. Very bad! RADAR shows Flight 77 on the south flight path; Multiple, independent RADARS! This makes your pick a failure. No wonder you are unable to respond to a barrage, you have nonsense as your evidence.

If the plane had flown a flight path South of the Citco station, you would think there would have been a similar number of people speaking up, and who were in an excellent physical position to testify to that. Turns out, there are none who have spoken up.

There are. And RADAR shows the south Flight Path. Gee, real data, and you want eyewitnesses you have to go in the field the same day and use rulers and get them to point with a ruler to the position they saw 77. As the fingers of CIT witnesses actually point to the flight path of 77 in CIT's video, it is amazing you failed to see them point south? Not a boyscout? Direction challenged?

There are a large number of witnesses (seventy or so) who were NOT in an excellent physical position to say one way or another if the plane flew North or South of the Citco station. Therefore, I don't think their testimony on this issue should be given much weight.

Do you make this up as you go? Do you omit the FDR and RADAR because they will destroy your delusions? Or will you add to the list of those people in on it?

Deets, is he going to find the vast pile of ample evidence claimed by 911 truth, or will he figure out 911 truth, Gage, 11.2 g Balsamo, and CIT are liars? He might have some skills that can rise above his delusions and save him. Bets?

 

[Miragememories]

"I'm sorry, but you're the one in denial.

You stuck on one little incongruous detail, the CITGO station, and in order to make sense of it you have to invent a hugely complicated and unbelievable story about planted lightpoles, and a flyover and whatnot, when in fact, if you use logic, and remove the one faulty piece of evidence (the north of CITGO eyewitnesses) that doesn't fit with the mountain of other evidences, then everything falls into place and you've got a simple, explanatory narrative that makes sense, which is the most important for any theory.

But you don't want that, you choose to stick with the the unbelievably contrived story because you want to believe.

That's denial."

"one little incongruous detail, the CITGO station".

It was there and it was real. There was nothing "incongruous" about it.

My story is not "hugely complicated and unbelievable".

Ah yes, if we remove those 10 good eyewitnesses who were willing to go on the record as
to what they know they saw, you have a case.

Unfortunately for your argument, they are real and your argument is bogus.

MM

 

[beachnut]

... If you have been following the point of our exchange, its basic theme deals with "planted evidence".

MM

Deets has to agree with your idiotic planted evidence. How many people were in on it? Each time your moronic movement makes a statement like this, more people are piled on your, "in on it list".
How many military were in on it?

 

[Miragememories]

Remove the north of the CITGO flightpath theory and everything else makes sense.

The eyewitnesses know it as reality.

It is you and your dogmatic belief that see it as a theory.

MM

 

[Childlike Empress]

Or are you going to show everyone there was "in on it"?

That's the only other possibility. The witnesses are lying. To assume that they were all mistaken is no rational option. The eyewitness testimony leads to planted evidence anyway you want to interpret it. That's why i agree with Jon Gold and others that "NSA" is not the best video to recommend to 9/11 novices. I'll always choose "Press for Truth" over it. But for the advanced 9/11 analyst - as all residents here should be -, it is a must watch, and denying the evidence is foolish.

Again:

NoC flight path: fact proven by corroborated eyewitness testimony (if they aren't "in on it")
Flyover: Theory best explaining the evidence

 

[Miragememories]

It's simple, It couldn't be north of the Citgo. It goes against all the physical evidence.

Exactly my point.

Therefore, any physical evidence supporting a known-to-be-false, south of Citgo flightpath, should not be there.

The only logical explanation is that the contradictory evidence must be planted evidence.

MM

 

[Pardalis]

It was there and it was real. There was nothing "incongruous" about it.

The plane debris and DNA found at the site were real too.

The eyewitnesses know it as reality.

And eyewitnesses are known to be wrong, and increasingly so as the years go by..

That's the only other possibility. The witnesses are lying.

Or they're MISTAKEN.

Look it up, it's a nice little word. People get things wrong all the time. It's far more believable and banal than to plant evidence in plain sight.

NoC flight path: fact proven by corroborated eyewitness testimony (if they aren't "in on it")
Flyover: Theory best explaining the evidence

So what hit the Pentagon?

 

[The Big Dog]

That's the only other possibility. The witnesses are lying. To assume that they were all mistaken is no rational option. The eyewitness testimony leads to planted evidence anyway you want to interpret it. That's why i agree with Jon Gold and others that "NSA" is not the best video to recommend to 9/11 novices. I'll always choose "Press for Truth" over it. But for the advanced 9/11 analyst - as all residents here should be -, it is a must watch, and denying the evidence is foolish.

Again:

NoC flight path: fact proven by corroborated eyewitness testimony (if they aren't "in on it")
Flyover: Theory best explaining the evidence

Seriously? You do know that the CIT's videos are grossly misleading and contradictory, don't you? I mean the fact that they put Paik out in the street when he was actually in the building? the fact that Paik and Morin are confirmed SOC witnesses, the fact that they are all impact witnesses.

We can go on and on and on, but you just keep on plucking that No Planer chicken, darling.

 

[Pardalis]

The only logical explanation is that the contradictory evidence must be planted evidence.

And that's just an insane way of thinking. I'm sorry, but there are no other words for it.

 

[Miragememories]

Deets has to agree with your idiotic planted evidence. How many people were in on it? Each time your moronic movement makes a statement like this, more people are piled on your, "in on it list".
How many military were in on it?

When you run out of lies, accusations and mockery, you request speculation.

Why do you ask for speculation?

So you can justify more lies, accusations and mockery.

MM

 

[Pardalis]

BTW Childlike, we can officially call you a truther now?

 

[Miragememories]

"The only logical explanation is that the contradictory evidence must be planted evidence."

And that's just an insane way of thinking. I'm sorry, but there are no other words for it.

Are you suggesting it is illogical?

Or are you having a difficult time digesting the significance of "planted evidence"?

9/11 was an Inside Job is scary stuff.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

BTW Childlike, we can officially call you a truther now?

Anyone with an ounce of self respect should want to be a "truther" if the other option is to be a bigot.

MM