NASA Engineer (ret.) is a Twoofie?

[Pardalis]

Eyewitnesses have the greatest difficulty identifying people in a police lineup.

Have you seen the Citgo setting?

You look north, one view.

You turn 180 degrees and look south, a completely different view.

Now it is 9/11.

A day that only the brain dead could forget.

You are at the CItgo gas station.

You hear the loud roar of a Boeing 767 approaching at high speed and very low altitude.

You look to the north and this dramatic vision of this close up fly by is permanently etched in your memory.

A second later a huge conflagration occurs at the Pentagon.

Years later, someone suggests that you and 9 others were not likely
to remember such an event very well.

I still remember exactly where I was the day JFK was assassinated!

You sir are afraid of the truth and deep in denial!

MM

It doesn't matter if you space those events in double space, they still occurred in a fraction of a second, and no human brain can retain so much information for so long, with exactitude.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Gee, I have posted two witnesses that Fat Aldo claims are lying, Lloyde and Madlene Zakhem. When you see what they say about Probst (which ain't much) that will be three. And then we'll go through Arabesque's whole freaking list.

We don't have to go through "Arabesque"'s list. A guy named Stefan already did that for us, as you know. Where's "Arabesque", btw? "Retired"?

 

[The Big Dog]

Exactly. That's why the demands and insinuations that CIT hasn't published "the full" interviews fall flat on their face. What is supposed to be hidden? Paik turning 180 degrees around and saying "just joking, the plane flew over there"? Ridiculous.

Or, you know, the part where he tells them he WAS INSIDE THE SHOP facing South when he saw the plane go by, as we know was in fact the case.

But you don't care, Craig Beiber and the Buffet Slayer have spoken.

Now get busy with Probst, tick tock, as they say.

 

[The Big Dog]

We don't have to go through "Arabesque"'s list. A guy named Stefan already did that for us, as you know. Where's "Arabesque", btw? "Retired"?

ctrl F, "probst," No Result Found.

FACE PALM.

Get with the Probst, CIT, as your buddy says, TICK TOCK.

 

[carlitos]

Does anyone else find it ironic that a poster with the handle "Miragememories" dismisses all forensic, physical and documentary evidence based on the memory of a few eyewitnesses? Isn't the name itself an allusion to the common phenomenon of false memory?

 

[Childlike Empress]

Their global share of internet traffic has soared from seven one hundred thousandths of a percent of net users to ... seven one hundred thousandths of a percent.

Ah, an argument from popularity, how cute. There are some very relevant increasing values in your collection, but we all know the argument is hogwash so i'll not analyze. To cure you from using it, i instead offer the following:

 

[carlitos]

Yes, now that Drudge is linking the execrable Infowars site, their traffic has increased. This makes the CIT lies more true how, exactly?

And by "very relevant" do you mean "a sample so small as to be statistically insigficant?" I'm really curious.

PS - Hot thread all of a sudden. Poor deets will never answer Mackey's question with all this flurry!

 

[R.Mackey]

PS - Hot thread all of a sudden. Poor deets will never answer Mackey's question with all this flurry!

Good thing he has all these stooges to distract away from serious discussion, isn't it?

Doesn't matter. The record shows, thus far, he failed to support his own claim. If he wants to leave it there, it's his loss. Not that he has a chance of being correct in the first place.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Good thing he has all these stooges to distract away from serious discussion, isn't it?

To recap: Mr. Deets expressed his general willingness to discuss a 9/11 topic with you in a moderated thread. I and others proposed topics, but as long as you are not willing to take it up, all proposals are moot. And you were silent so far.

We saw that Ron has tried to persuate you to do a Hardfire show with Balsamo since at least early 2009. Now that Deets showed up, your excuse that Balsamo isn't qualified (unlike Tony Szamboti) to take it up with the big NASA scientist that you are is invalid. As i saw when i read the first pages of this thread, Ron asked you again to take it up with Deets.

So wassup? Hardfire? Moderated thread? Or "nothing to debate"?

 

[Oystein]

Something definitely doesn't add up, Pardalis. Are the witnesses lying? You would be the second person behind that theory. For me, they are extremely credible. Random everyday people just happening to work on scene, telling what they saw without realizing the implications. Watch their testimony or spare me a reply, please.

No. They are less than exact and almost certainly err to some degree.

The liars are those who cherry-pick witness accounts and misrepresent what the body of witness accounts in its entirety contains.

I am surprised to see you displaying such bad character by defending liars (not the poor witnesses - those who abuse and manipulate them)

 

[Garb]

Eyewitnesses have the greatest difficulty identifying people in a police lineup.

Have you seen the Citgo setting?

You look north, one view.

You turn 180 degrees and look south, a completely different view.

Now it is 9/11.

A day that only the brain dead could forget.

You are at the CItgo gas station.

You hear the loud roar of a Boeing 767 approaching at high speed and very low altitude.

You look to the north and this dramatic vision of this close up fly by is permanently etched in your memory.

A second later a huge conflagration occurs at the Pentagon.

Years later, someone suggests that you and 9 others were not likely
to remember such an event very well.

I still remember exactly where I was the day JFK was assassinated!

You sir are afraid of the truth and deep in denial!

MM

And what of the witnesses who say they saw flight 77 hit the pentagon?

Why are there no witnesses who claimed they saw "flight 77" miss the Pentagon and fly away?

 

[DGM]

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

So a crap load of people are "in on it"? Just say it.

 

[DGM]

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

Didn't they all say the plane hit the Pentagon? How do you explain that? Don't forget to keep your "logic" consistent.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Good thing he has all these stooges to distract away from serious discussion, isn't it?

I would've called them "groupies", but your term works too. Come to think of it, it's probably a better choice than mine.

 

[Childlike Empress]

And what of the witnesses who say they saw flight 77 hit the pentagon?

Didn't they all say the plane hit the Pentagon? How do you explain that? Don't forget to keep your "logic" consistent.

What is the conclusion CIT draws from the evidence they obtained? Do you have a better one? Where's Max Photon when you need him? A military deception. It's inherently logical that those people think they saw the plane hit. The deception worked.

Just like they didn't have to stage WMD in Iraq. Putin says he would have found some, but the russian people are well educated in critical thinking.

 

[funk de fino]

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 is easy even for you. The plane was where the real hard evidence says it was. Not where a few people think they saw it.

Who planted the poles and when did they do it?

 

[funk de fino]

The Pentagon video shows a whole lot of nothing.

MM

Like no flyover plane? I totally agree.

Arguing from a position of ignorance of aircraft on aircraft related matters is rather cute. Pathetic but cute.

 

[DGM]

What is the conclusion CIT draws from the evidence they obtained? Do you have a better one? Where's Max Photon when you need him? A military deception. It's inherently logical that those people think they saw the plane hit. The deception worked.

Just like they didn't have to stage WMD in Iraq. Putin says he would have found some, but the russian people are well educated in critical thinking.

Yes I do have a better one. The CIT boys cherry picked the "evidence they wanted and the plane hit the Pentagon exactly where the evidence was found. Are you ready to start naming names of the people that were "in on it"? There's hundreds you know.

 

[funk de fino]

What is the conclusion CIT draws from the evidence they obtained? Do you have a better one? Where's Max Photon when you need him? A military deception. It's inherently logical that those people think they saw the plane hit. The deception worked.

Just like they didn't have to stage WMD in Iraq. Putin says he would have found some, but the russian people are well educated in critical thinking.

How were the ATC guys duped into seeing the radar track dissappear at the Pentagon? How did the military do that?

Which branch of the military are you accusing here and how many would have been involved?

 

[Oystein]

What is the conclusion CIT draws from the evidence they obtained? Do you have a better one? Where's Max Photon when you need him? A military deception. It's inherently logical that those people think they saw the plane hit. The deception worked.

The laboured truther logic: Whatever contradicts my theory must be a deception.
How do you know those NoC sightings were not the real deception?

Just like they didn't have to stage WMD in Iraq. Putin says he would have found some, but the russian people are well educated in critical thinking.

Most aren't, actually. Those who are know well why Putin would have found something. They know better than to trust his word.