8 out of 8 at Citgo station

[mudlark]

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.

Incorrect. This SOC path advocated by BCR does not cross any part of the Annex.

Ed paik did NOT think the VDOT tower was clipped in that in his interview with Russell Pickering he saw ´repair guys´ working at it the next day.
He did not say he witnessed that plane strike or even anywhere NEAR the VDOT tower. You are misrepresenting what he said.

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

Again, he was WITHIN THE WINGS OF THE ANNEX and saw the ´belly of the plane´ OVER his head.

¨I HAD NO SIDE-VIEW. IF I HAD HAVE HAD A SIDE-VIEW I WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SEE THE STRIPES AND IDENTIFY IT AS AN AMERICAN AIRLINES JET..I DIDN´T SEE THE STRIPES, ALL I COULD SEE WAS THE BELLY¨

How does this fit in any way with what BCR has been touting as the ´official path´?

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/farmerofficialpath-1.jpg

It doesn´t. Unless BCR is wrong?

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

Also false

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)

100% of witnesses who were actually WITHIN the NOC area and who ALL agree on which side of the Citgo they saw the plane are wrong?
The ´commonly accepted flightpath´ you refer to is not commonly accepted among witnesses whether they believe they saw an ´impact´ or not.

 

[sadhatter]

Mudlark

You seem to be relying on the fact that 8 people could not have been mistaken. How do you explain large numbers of people who claim to see ghosts or spirits at the same time? Such as ghost hunting classes? I have seen first hand how an entire group can saw something was there that just wasn't.

That and well, it could just be lying. People trying to get their 15 minutes of fame. But the thought that people could be lying or mistaken never seems to cross the minds of conspiracy theorists, except of course if those people are in government employ.

 

[mudlark]

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.

´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....´

In other words...take their word for it...

Have you any links to ANY documentation or...?

 

[DGM]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for Rule 12.

 

[mudlark]

Originally Posted by mudlark
Yes, this is the flightpath NOBODY witnessed.

Without any facts in your favor, you can only repeat that enormous lie.

STILL waiting on a witness who saw the plane fly by the Navy Annex, not over. That saw the plane fly south of the Citgo gas station.
Got one? Just one?

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.

I take it you are referring to the dismally failed attempt at misrepresenting Paik and Morin as being anything other than Navy Annex witnesses?
No, sorry. Fail.

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.

Haha. Again?? Name the SOC witnesses.

Lightpole witnesses are a scarcity too when their testimony is examined or CIT actually get a chance to ask them face to face if they actually DID witness the poles being struck

false

 

[sadhatter]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for response to modded post.

 

[mudlark]

As I recall last time this came up in this forum, the CIT clone said that Morin may have seen the tail as the plane was flying up away from the Pentagon, after the explosion. Srsly.

No, I said that IF he actually DID see the tail of the plane JUST before it ´impacted´ then the altitude as the plane crossed the lawn is definitely NOT ´low and level´ as it has to be.

The reference to a witness that could only have witnessed a tail from his POV was WITHIN the Centre Court of the Pentagon.
Physically impossible unless it was a flyover. Fact with a hint of sarcasm.
Srsly.

 

[DGM]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for response to modded post.

 

[mudlark]

Mudlark

You seem to be relying on the fact that 8 people could not have been mistaken. How do you explain large numbers of people who claim to see ghosts or spirits at the same time? Such as ghost hunting classes? I have seen first hand how an entire group can saw something was there that just wasn't.

That and well, it could just be lying. People trying to get their 15 minutes of fame. But the thought that people could be lying or mistaken never seems to cross the minds of conspiracy theorists, except of course if those people are in government employ.

Difference is that it wasn´t just ´8´ people.
Anybody who saw a ´right bank´ is now being dismissed in this thread.
Anybody who witnessed the plane fly over the Navy Annex is now relegated to the ´misremembered club´
Even the witnesses within the Pentagon lawn area are wrong.
NOBODY witnessed the SOC path.

Now if the same group you talk of see a ghost enter through the window, circle the room and leave through the back door but are later told that the ghost entered through the front door and went straight across the room out the back door..

 

[sadhatter]

"Now if the same group you talk of see a ghost enter through the window, circle the room and leave through the back door but are later told that the ghost entered through the front door and went straight across the room out the back door.."

What are you trying to say by this it seems like half a sentence. And it is the only part that has anything to do with what i mentioned. Memory is a funny thing and can be easily influenced. Anecdotal evidence that clearly contradicts known facts is not exactly the most solid ground to be walking on.

 

[sadhatter]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for response to modded post.

 

[DGM]

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/01/Buzzbomb.jpg[/qimg]

So this is what i am talking to, great, thanks for warnin' me guys.

That's just about it!

BTW The "quote" and "reply" functions are your friend.

 

[mudlark]

DGM

Do you mean bot in a literal or figurative sense? I mean i will feel slightly sillier depending on which answer is true.

Does it really matter? The result is the same. You are trying to engage a person/thing that holds no credence in what you say and can/will dismiss any inconvenient evidence if it does not fit his/her/it's agenda.

A thing? Talk about dehumanising. Anyway...
Sadhatter please read my first post tonight on the disinfo and falsehoods throughout this thread masquerading as counterarguments to one simple assertion that I have made from the start.
Witness testimony may be prone to mistakes but to dismiss all that does not ´fit´ the official narrative? Especially when it is corraborrated and verified.
Especially when it is not a case of remembering specifics like colours and features, but a passenger jet´s positioning against background buildings, whether it flew OVER a building or to the side of it, or whether it was flying a straight trajectory or ´banking´.
That they are ALL wrong is the problem that I have. And which cannot be.

 

[sadhatter]

Dgm:

You know i have been attempting to use the reply and quote functions but they are just not working for some reason. Reply always takes me down to quick reply and quote, seems to take me to starting a new thread. Though i will admit that due to not wanting to seem like a moron i havn't attempted to use the quote fully, lest i have a thread out there showing buzzbomb and a wierd quote from me.

 

[mudlark]

"Now if the same group you talk of see a ghost enter through the window, circle the room and leave through the back door but are later told that the ghost entered through the front door and went straight across the room out the back door.."

What are you trying to say by this it seems like half a sentence. And it is the only part that has anything to do with what i mentioned. Memory is a funny thing and can be easily influenced. Anecdotal evidence that clearly contradicts known facts is not exactly the most solid ground to be walking on.

I WAS going to discuss it with you but now I see you have joined the other real ´bots´.
Well done DGM. Another one afraid to enter real discussion.

 

[DGM]

A thing? Talk about dehumanising. Anyway...
Sadhatter please read my first post tonight on the disinfo and falsehoods throughout this thread masquerading as counterarguments to one simple assertion that I have made from the start.
Witness testimony may be prone to mistakes but to dismiss all that does not ´fit´ the official narrative? Especially when it is corraborrated and verified.
Especially when it is not a case of remembering specifics like colours and features, but a passenger jet´s positioning against background buildings, whether it flew OVER a building or to the side of it, or whether it was flying a straight trajectory or ´banking´.
That they are ALL wrong is the problem that I have. And which cannot be.

The problem is your "collaborated" evidence does not even agree with what you say it does. Your only rebuttal is to hand wave away any "inconvenient" issues.

How many saw the plane hit the building (or would have plainly seen it fly over)?

 

[sadhatter]

Mudlark:

Just because one person agrees with another does not make it right, especially when it contradicts known facts. It is not a case of " it contradicts the official story" but of one type of evidence not being as reliable as another.

If you are correct, surely there will be some real evidence, not just hearsay and anecdotal evidence.

If you would like, Google Jeff bender, he is a local ghost hunter, and i could give you many places where him and groups of people have seen the famous Ghost dog, of the city i live in. By your logic i cannot just dismiss them because they are contradicting known facts ( there are no ghosts) and their story, regardless of anything else i know is true, is , by your logic true because it is verified by the many sightings, and the " professional" Jeff bender, which i will say is as professional as any source you have mentioned.

So why would you not believe the claims of Jeff bender and a gaggle of ghost hunters, yet you believe the claims of an equally fallible group of people?

 

[leftysergeant]

Even the witnesses within the Pentagon lawn area are wrong. NOBODY witnessed the SOC path.

This is not a true statement. Your shipment of fail has arrived.

 

[DGM]

Mudlark:
Why is all the physical evidence wrong or dismissed?

 

[Mr.Herbert]

I will post my question again...

When will CIT present an animation of the flyover?
Of course, if you use the so called flyover witness, you will need to put the fly AROUND animation together.

Looking at your CIT's "National Security Alert" website, you have had your "Report" section "under construction" since you created this site. When will this update come around? When will you list the names of those in the media you have contacted?

What is happening with "Operation Accountability"? I am guessing that you have failed in your attempt to recruit more idiots to threaten the media if they don't watch your ridiculous DVD.