NASA Engineer (ret.) is a Twoofie?

[Disbelief]

Retirement is giving you way too much free time.

Planting your lies will not change the truth beachnut.

Sgt. Lagasse was too certain of what he observed, and too well positioned to be in error about which side of the Citgo gas station
Flight 77 passed him.

MM

Is that the same Sgt. Lagasse who states the plane hit the Pentagon and that the CIT losers are idiots? That Sgt. Lagasse?

 

[T.A.M.]

Is that the same Sgt. Lagasse who states the plane hit the Pentagon and that the CIT losers are idiots? That Sgt. Lagasse?

yes, but that part, OF COURSE, is unreliable.

TAM

 

[leftysergeant]

What I proposed was that it was logically impossible for those 5 light poles to have been knocked
down by an aircraft with a flightpath north of the Citgo.

Which is just an additional arguement against NoC.

Logically, that means those light poles had to have been "planted" intentionally.

That there was not a traffic stoppage at that exact point prior to the impact proves that they were not.

You can't put the "cart before the horse".

The planting of evidence which is clearly designed to support a very specific belief, is strong argument that the belief must be false.

The wreckage was there in photos taken immediately after impact. None of the witnesses to what happened inside the building, like April Gallup, observed anyone palnting evidence. It was there when the fire fighters arrived. It can have been planted later only if you assume that the fire fighters are all lying.

 

[leftysergeant]

Sgt. Lagasse was too certain of what he observed, and too well positioned to be in error about which side of the Citgo gas station
Flight 77 passed him.

MM

Lagasse was under the canopy when he heard the palne. He would have come out looking for the source of the sound. Structures can confuse that. He may not remember exactly which way he was looking when he was confronted by the most absurd thing he had seen in his life. You can easily place a moving object in relation to a stationary observer. A moving observer has a lot harder time fixing the location of a moving object.

 

[dadeets]

FDNY says something, and you call it an opinion.

But, yet, someone else, 2 cops and 8 civillians, say something, and you call it fact.

I have no idea where the FDNY first responders were, but my guess is they weren't beneath the South side path, or at the critical point to make the distinction between the two paths in question, at the Citco gas station.

The two cops were in the ideal place, at the Citco station. The 8 civilians were at the ideal place to testify to what they saw, and it turns out to be consistent with a North-side path.

 

[Woody-]

Not my plan Woody.

The fact remains the light poles were taken down.

They provided reinforcement for a bogus pre-determined south of the Citgo flightpath.

After making its difficult final maneuver, had the actual flight not been off a few degrees and on a north of Citgo flightpath, no one would have noticed any contradiction.

MM

You missed my point,(not surprising).

For the CIT theory to be correct it has to account for the light poles but it is the light poles that are the best evidence against CIT since its would be insane to include them in any plan. You said it yourself, all it takes is for the flight path to be off a few degrees and you have knocked over the wrong light poles. Unless your evil organization could be 100% sure of the flight path knocking the light poles over would never even be considered and even if they could be sure of the flight path it would still be a stupid thing to do, the added complexity and risk far outweighs any benefit.

 

[tsig]

What I proposed was that it was logically impossible for those 5 light poles to have been knocked
down by an aircraft with a flightpath north of the Citgo.

Logically, that means those light poles had to have been "planted" intentionally.

Once we address that point, we can move on to what happened after.

You can't put the "cart before the horse".

Al if you don't wish to have an adult discussion than just say so and I'll stop attempting to
reason with you?

The planting of evidence which is clearly designed to support a very specific belief, is strong argument that the belief must be false.

If the belief was true, it would not be necessary to support it with false evidence.

MM

Since the light poles were knocked down it means the plane didn't go north.

 

[Reheat]

The two cops were in the ideal place, at the Citco station. The 8 civilians were at the ideal place to testify to what they saw, and it turns out to be consistent with a North-side path.

Regardless of the position of the "witnesses", since when do eye witnesses trump physical evidence?

 

[beachnut]

I have no idea where the FDNY first responders were, but my guess is they weren't beneath the South side path, or at the critical point to make the distinction between the two paths in question, at the Citco gas station.

The two cops were in the ideal place, at the Citco station. The 8 civilians were at the ideal place to testify to what they saw, and it turns out to be consistent with a North-side path.

LOL, the Pentagon is in DC, no NYC. You have problems...

Here are some of CIT witnesses clearly pointing to the south flight path which is confirmed by RADAR, and FDR.

CIT are the worse investigators in history, you failed to research 911 and it shows as you endorse moronic lies.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Regardless of the position of the "witnesses", since when do eye witnesses trump physical evidence?

I don't think we're at the point where we need to be concerned about that. They need to first learn how to use eye witness testimony to begin with, especially under the consideration that their use of it is completely backwards. They are biased toward statistical outliers, rather than the collective testimony taken as a whole.

 

[TjW]

I have no idea where the FDNY first responders were, but my guess is they weren't beneath the South side path, or at the critical point to make the distinction between the two paths in question, at the Citco gas station.

The two cops were in the ideal place, at the Citco station. The 8 civilians were at the ideal place to testify to what they saw, and it turns out to be consistent with a North-side path.

So when they said they saw it in a location contradicting dozens of other eyewitnesses, they were telling the truth, but when they said it was in a location confirmed by dozens of other witnesses, then they were mistaken?

You don't have any problem believing this?

 

[Reheat]

They need to first learn how to use eye witness testimony to begin with, especially under the consideration that their use of it is completely backwards. They are biased toward statistical outliers, rather than the collective testimony taken as a whole.

CIT and their supporters learn......ANYTHING? You must be joking.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

CIT and their supporters learn......ANYTHING? You must be joking.

You could call it "innocently optimistic".

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You could call it "innocently optimistic".

I try my best

 

[Fonebone]

tons of flight 800 re-assembled 4 NTSB investigation

How did someone deposit 140 tons of aircraft debris and all 64 bodies (all last seen only 90 minutes earlier) inside a burning building under the continuous observation of a bunch of random people?

140 tons of aircraft and the identified bodily remains of all 64 people that boarded it was found inside the Pentagon 90 minutes after taking off from Dulles airport. The approach, the crash and the forensic recovery was under continuous observation by countless people. We know the names and have the statements of about 250.

An estimated 7,000 first responders and forensic investigators worked on the Flight 77 hijacking. They would all be very surprised to find it was the wrong plane.

How do you explain the fact that the bodies of everyone that boarded Flight 77 were identified in the debris of essentially the entire airplane buried inside the Pentagon 90 minutes after takeoff. All of this was witnessed by hundred of people, we have the statements of about 250. The black boxes were recovered. The audio box records Arabic language and a hijacking. The data box shows a flight path that agrees with the FAA radar track and the cellphone/airphone data and shows that the plane was being flown on manual control by the hijackers control right to the end. We have the boarding manifest. We have video of them boarding. Like Flt 93, 11 and 175, the plane and occupants have never been since that day.

Here is a good chunk of Flt 800 's 140 tons retrieved from the bottom of long island sound and shown here reconstructed during a NTSB investigation.



Got a picture of any of flt 77 's 140 tons used
to reconstruct a Boeing 757 for an NTSB investigation Al ? No ?

 

[TJM]

Got a picture of any of flt 77 's 140 tons used
to reconstruct a Boeing 757 for an NTSB investigation Al ? No ?

Why do you think the NTSB would attempt to reconstruct flight 77 in that manner?

 

[beachnut]

Here is a good chunk of Flt 800 's 140 tons retrieved from the bottom of long island sound and shown here reconstructed during a NTSB investigation.



Got a picture of any of flt 77 's 140 tons used
to reconstruct a Boeing 757 for an NTSB investigation Al ? No ?

Is this a real question, or do you have this much ignorance and lack of evidence on 911? This is a very dumb post; already debunked on 911.

911 was a crime; aircraft are only put back together to discover what causes accidents in aircraft. On 911 a terrorist pilot flew 77 into the Pentagon. Cause of crash, on purpose, a crime, the FBI does crime. NTSB does not put planes back together when they know the cause is crime, an on purpose thing.

NTSB does not do crime. This is common knowledge to people who understand flying.

The FDR was found and decoded and makes Deets claims of a flyover moronic nonsense as bad as your question on reconstructing 77.

Why would you reconstruct 77? The FDR shows pilot/terrorist inputs flew 77 into the Pentagon. RADAR confirms 77 impacted the Pentagon. Why would you waste time to figure out why 77 crashed by reconstructing the airframe which the FDR shows was working perfect. Pure nonsense, as stupid as the flyover tripe.

Does Deets share your delusion on this issue?

 

[T.A.M.]

Here is a good chunk of Flt 800 's 140 tons retrieved from the bottom of long island sound and shown here reconstructed during a NTSB investigation.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_363814ca0222224caf.jpg[/qimg]

Got a picture of any of flt 77 's 140 tons used
to reconstruct a Boeing 757 for an NTSB investigation Al ? No ?

You have no clue. Can we add common sense to list of things you are lacking. Common sense tells me that a jetliner crashing into a reinforced concrete building at 500 mph is gonna have A LOT less recoverable debris, then a jet airliner that suffers an in air break up (regardless of cause) and then falls into the water.

But heh, that is just common sense.

TAM

 

[The Big Dog]

I have no idea where the FDNY first responders were, but my guess is they weren't beneath the South side path, or at the critical point to make the distinction between the two paths in question, at the Citco gas station.

The two cops were in the ideal place, at the Citco station. The 8 civilians were at the ideal place to testify to what they saw, and it turns out to be consistent with a North-side path.

Wow, did you read anything that we posted??? The South Side Witness lists, the fact that your heroes viciously attack any and all people who disagree with the, the fact that your heroes won't release their raw video, the fact that their flight path is utterly impossible?

Nothing?

Well as you admit you know absolutely nothing about the witnesses I'll just charitably say that you have been grossly misinformed, No Planer.

 

[DGM]

You have no clue. Can we add common sense to list of things you are lacking. Common sense tells me that a jetliner crashing into a reinforced concrete building at 500 mph is gonna have A LOT less recoverable debris, then a jet airliner that suffers an in air break up (regardless of cause) and then falls into the water.

But heh, that is just common sense.

TAM

My common sense tells me that they didn't need to spend tons of money reconstructing the plane to find out WHY it crashed.