8 out of 8 at Citgo station

[Algebra34]

Got Paiks flightpath yet?

Have you got any proven flight path yet? How about a flight speed?

 

[DGM]

Have you got any proven flight path yet? How about a flight speed?

Radar

 

[funk de fino]

Have you got any proven flight path yet? How about a flight speed?

Bring Paiks flightpath. Its not much to ask.

 

[Arus808]

Have you got any proven flight path yet? How about a flight speed?

yes radar and the FDR reading.

YOU know this.

 

[Algebra34]

Radar

Radar? You mean the one the ATC was following when they thought it was a fighter jet? What transponder code?

 

[Childlike Empress]

Ironic with a name like Algebra34, your lucky 7 does not help you use math to see all the NoC flight paths presented by ce (now u 2) are impossible.

CIT failed, and since your only support of CIT work is by saying, "debunkers", you too have failed to save CIT ideas from being pure idiotic delusions made up out of ignorance and the lack of physics to understand the flight paths can't be drawn by witnesses observing a high speed large jet from a tangential position. You, ce, and CIT are hilarious as all you present is hearsay and lies to support moronic implications about 911. If only you guys would use real aircraft accident investigators to save you from posting failed support of failed ideas, and failed ideas.

math7 - truther0

I already gave you advice i won't repeat. 2010 will be a funny year on this forum. Expect more people losing it.

 

[Algebra34]

Bring Paiks flightpath. Its not much to ask.

You are the one who claims to know what happened. Prove it. Don't ask me to disprove it.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Bring Paiks flightpath. Its not much to ask.

He drew it. It's on this thread several times.

 

[Arus808]

Radar? You mean the one the ATC was following when they thought it was a fighter jet? What transponder code?

yes the one that they followed. yes the one they thought was a fighter jet, and realized it wan'st (you should go back and READ ENTIRELY their claims. At no point did they not realize that it wasn't flight 77)

Transponder was turned off , YOU know this. But RADAR tracked the plane.

You have the RADAR and FDR to deal with.

 

[Arus808]

Expect more people Truhters losing it.

fixed that for you.

its 2010. the only time i see or hear about truthers are on the net. haven't met one in real life, despite being in contact with over a thousand people a day

 

[DGM]

Radar? You mean the one the ATC was following when they thought it was a fighter jet? What transponder code?

So you don't know how radar works. ATC was guessing because only a nut would fly like Hanni did. What do "transponder codes" have to do with radar track (I'm sandbagging you)?

 

[Arus808]

He drew it. It's on this thread several times.

yes, and his flight path shows one that couldn't be done, based on his location and of course his statement that he thought the plane hit the VDOT tower, which would put the plane on the South flight path.

 

[funk de fino]

Radar? You mean the one the ATC was following when they thought it was a fighter jet? What transponder code?

There was more than one ATC following it. They watched the track dissappear.

 

[funk de fino]

He drew it. It's on this thread several times.

Bring it.

 

[funk de fino]

You are the one who claims to know what happened. Prove it. Don't ask me to disprove it.

I know flight 77 did not fly over the Pentagon. You know it too.

 

[Algebra34]

Ironic with a name like Algebra34, your lucky 7 does not help you use math to see all the NoC flight paths presented by ce (now u 2) are impossible.

CIT failed, and since your only support of CIT work is by saying, "debunkers", you too have failed to save CIT ideas from being pure idiotic delusions made up out of ignorance and the lack of physics to understand the flight paths can't be drawn by witnesses observing a high speed large jet from a tangential position. You, ce, and CIT are hilarious as all you present is hearsay and lies to support moronic implications about 911. If only you guys would use real aircraft accident investigators to save you from posting failed support of failed ideas, and failed ideas.

math7 - truther0

I watched a video by CIT. They produced witnesses that dispute the official version who weren't really concerned one way or another.

You don't have radar. You don't have a transoder code. You don't have indentified plane debris. You can't even tell me how much of a plane was recovered.

You have ATC testimony that claims what they were looking at must be a military flight.

Who the hell are you trying to kid?

You are the one with the story you claim is the truth. Just prove it already. Because I can come up with stories all day. All day long. And you can pretend to debunk them. All day long. Your whole life long.

 

[The Big Dog]

He drew it. It's on this thread several times.

Whoops! I thought you said you did not "feel" like talking about the fact that CIT's Paik story has been exposed as a fraud. It appears that you "feel" differently now.

Cool story, sis!

Here is the question you ducked this afternoon:

Say, CE, where was Paik anyway when he saw the plane?

Now that you "feel" like talking about Paik, how do you "feel" about answering a straight forward question.

 

[twinstead]

You are the one with the story you claim is the truth. Just prove it already. Because I can come up with stories all day. All day long. And you can pretend to debunk them. All day long. Your whole life long.

Wow. Project much?

 

[The Big Dog]

I watched a video by CIT.
Who the hell are you trying to kid?

Yeah, CIT has been lying to you. Don't be a chump.

 

[funk de fino]

You have ATC testimony that claims what they were looking at must be a military flight.

That is a blatant lie.

*Cue semantics*