8 out of 8 at Citgo station

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Childlike Empress' refusal to examine the very video he tries to push here is almost as bizarre as his support for the idiotic delusion in the first place.

Don't look too closely, CE. You might find some flaws...

 

[LashL]

Come on, you've seen the lego blocks too. Didn't you see the sun spectrum they came up with? It was even peer reviewed. Now please make yourself familiar with the topic or continue with your domina activities in the community forum - a place where you fit much better. Thanks.

Please familiarize yourself with the nonsense that you yourself are touting here in this thread, including the fundamentally flawed diagram that the tree fort boys use in their silly video that you spammed earlier.

Learn what a leading question is, and learn why the tree fort boys' diagram is flawed, and learn why all of the subsequent flight paths drawn on it are utterly useless and invalid.

Then, come on back and let's talk once you have done so. This is about the E in the JREF, and it appears that you are averse to learning.

 

[LashL]

Childlike Empress' refusal to examine the very video he tries to push here is almost as bizarre as his support for the idiotic delusion in the first place.

Don't look to closely, CE. You might find some flaws...

Indeed.

 

[Childlike Empress]

This is about the E in the JREF, and it appears that you are averse to learning.

Oh, believe me i'm familiar with this. So put names to your charade. Who are the "tree fort boys"?

 

[Childlike Empress]

And what diagramm do you want me to review?

 

[Childlike Empress]

And don't forget the lego blocks!

 

[Childlike Empress]

I think it was the lego blocks who got him thinking.

 

[The Big Dog]

Still no linky, madam?

@the goons: Paik was on his property in a position to describe the plane - already on the north side of Columbia Pike -, flying over his garages and the roof of his office. Which contradicts the official data and is only the first step on a journey that takes us to the Pentagon on a path described by around a dozen credible witnesses in the best positions to judge, that anyone with any honesty had enough opportunities to watch in this thread.

And where on his property was he?

I mean for cripes sake, you don't believe that he was standing where the mutts deceptively placed him in their little scam video, do you?

He was on his property WHERE?

So, where was Paik when he saw the plane?

 

[beachnut]

And what diagramm do you want me to review?

The flight paths of many Gs. You can't have multiple flight paths that do not match the many real RADAR returns recorded on many separate and independent RADAR systems. You effectively leave hard evidence for witness statements who drew flight paths they can't draw.

Which flight path does not debunk the other flight path? CIT's flight paths take too many Gs, and were all draw by people who were tangential to the flight paths; makes them worthless except for the fact they all point south. This is hilarious.

I plotted on witness exactly where he pointed to in GE and that placed 77 exactly on the 61.2 to 61.5 degree course which lines up with RADAR, downed lampposts and the impact of the Pentagon. Math, geometry, physics, and flight knowledge helps; not sure why you support idiotic tripe after you have seen Paik point south to where he saw 77 from where he was on 911. All the witnesses saw 77 on the south flight path and CIT has documented it if you pay attention and filter out the stupid Craig junk.

CIT witness who says 77 hit the Pentagon and pointing to the south of the CITGO flight path. It can't be as clear as this.

Pointing to the south of Citgo flight path; CIT witness; need help with navigation?

Finger points to the flight path verified by FDR. Easy to understand CIT made up lies based on delusional investigation skills; rocks do a better job on 911 than CIT.

 

[Childlike Empress]

(@16.5) 15cm left of the old Datsun, 57cm north of the burger package he lost there the day before. Please accept the metric system. Why?

 

[Childlike Empress]

beachnut, eighter you take a stand on what was presented here in #165/#180 or don't expect a reply from me. I don't intend to communicate with proven liars.

 

[LashL]

Oh, believe me i'm familiar with this. So put names to your charade. Who are the "tree fort boys"?

And what diagramm do you want me to review?

The tree fort boys are the makers of the silly video that you've been touting in this thread. The diagram is the one upon which they have people draw flight paths in their silly videos.

I find it very difficult to believe that you do not know this, and I find it very telling that you are unwilling to examine the diagram that they use in their silly videos in order to discover its fundamental flaw - a fundamental flaw that renders every single one of the flight paths drawn upon it invalid and entirely devoid of evidentiary value.

 

[beachnut]

beachnut, eighter you take a stand on what was presented here in #165/#180 or don't expect a reply from me. I don't intend to communicate with proven liars.

Did you post the delusional flight paths? If so, please explain the G force required to make them happen. You can't. This is why you were fooled by CIT.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Disclaimer @the audience: I was kidding from #996 on. LEGO blocks don't play a role in this (as far as i'm aware). It's a very interesting experience to post against the grain on this forum. Sign up and experience. Off to bed i go.

 

[Childlike Empress]

The tree fort boys are the makers of the silly video that you've been touting in this thread. The diagram is the one upon which they have people draw flight paths in their silly videos.

I find it very difficult to believe that you do not know this, and I find it very telling that you are unwilling to examine the diagram that they use in their silly videos in order to discover its fundamental flaw - a fundamental flaw that renders every single one of the flight paths drawn upon it invalid and entirely devoid of evidentiary value.

So you are talking about this:

Or what? Fundamental flaw my ass, i go to bed now and will be very surprised if you are able to come up with something substantial until tomorrow. And name it.

 

[LashL]

Disclaimer @the audience: I was kidding from #996 on. LEGO blocks don't play a role in this (as far as i'm aware). It's a very interesting experience to post against the grain on this forum. Sign up and experience. Off to bed i go.

Please review the silly video you've been touting before you return, and pay close attention to the diagram that the tree fort boys use. Then, if you can't figure out what's wrong with it on your own, ask the idiots in the tree fort and see if they'll be honest with you. Then, report back here. If they won't tell you what's wrong with it, and if you can't figure it out after making an honest effort to do so, I'll clue you in to why it's leading, and why it renders all of the flight paths drawn on it invalid and of zero evidentiary value.

 

[LashL]

So you are talking about this:

No, silly boy. I'm talking about the actual paper diagrams that they use in their crappy videos, the ones that they get people to draw purported flight paths on individually.

Go and watch the stupid videos that you are espousing, then come on back when you figure it out.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Did you post the delusional flight paths? If so, please explain the G force required to make them happen. You can't. This is why you were fooled by CIT.

Are you able to post a single direct answer to reactions to your stunt? No you aren't, because you aren't even aware that you did anything wrong. Because you are a nut. Or? Are there better explanations for your behaviour? If so, they have to come from you and nobody else.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Boring lawyer girl, you still haven't pointed me in the direction of that magic "diagram" that clears all contradictions up. Really. After what five times asking.

 

[LashL]

Boring lawyer girl, you still haven't pointed me in the direction of that magic "diagram" that clears all contradictions up. Really. After what five times asking.

There is no "magic diagram that clears all contradictions up" - the diagram that is the subject matter of this discussion is the leading one that the tree fort duo uses in their silly videos, which renders all of the flight paths drawn upon it invalid and of zero evidentiary value, as has been made plain to you repeatedly in this very thread, over the past couple of hours:

This is not accurate. Not only are the published interviews chock full of leading questions, the diagram upon which the tree fort duo had the interviewees plot the flight paths that they thought they saw are also leading, and therefore faulty and invalid from the beginning. Ranke and Marquis know absolutely nothing about journalism, investigative or otherwise.

None of the paths drawn by those interviewed by the tree fort gang are valid, actually, not only because most of them are impossible, but they are fundamentally flawed because Ranke/Marquis started out with a leading diagram upon which they had the individuals draw the flight paths. They actually shot themselves in the foot by doing so, and probably would have been better served by providing a neutral diagram, which would not have influenced the witnesses' drawings upon it.

I'll take that as a "no", and I'm not at all surprised. Now, go and ask the tree fort duo what's wrong with their diagram, and see if they will be honest with you.

You're afraid to ask them what's wrong with their own diagram, I see. I am not at all surprised. How about you take a shot at it yourself? Do you not see what's fundamentally flawed with it?

I'm very familiar with the topic, as it's very old stuff. And this is not a derail at all. It's about the flight paths drawn by the people at the Citgo and the paths drawn by the other people interviewed by the tree fort duo.

Take a look at the tree fort video that you've been touting. Take a close look at the diagram that the tree fort duo produces for people to draw their recollections of the flight path upon, and it should be pretty blatantly obvious, even to you, what makes the diagram leading, and therefore invalid.

Go ahead, let's see if you can manage to figure something out on your own for once, rather than mindlessly following idiots like the tree fort duo down the conspiratorial garden path.

I agree with you that kindergarten is the outer limit of the level of investigative abilities possessed by the idiots who made the silly video that you've been touting here. This is borne out by the patently flawed diagram upon which they purported to have people draw flight paths.

You know, the one that I am urging you to examine to see if you can figure out what's leading about it, and what makes it, therefore, invalid. Go on, you know you want to.

The link is your own link to the silly video that you've been touting in this thread. Go and look at it, and take a close look at the diagram that the tree fort duo uses. Then put on your thinking cap for a change, and you will see what is wrong with it, why it is leading, and why every single one of the flight paths drawn on it by the people interviewed by the tree fort duo are invalid.

I have no idea what you're talking about. You clearly haven't looked at the diagram, nor figured out what is wrong with it. You should go and ask the morons who made that silly video, and see if they'll be honest with you. I don't think they will be.

Please familiarize yourself with the nonsense that you yourself are touting here in this thread, including the fundamentally flawed diagram that the tree fort boys use in their silly video that you spammed earlier.

Learn what a leading question is, and learn why the tree fort boys' diagram is flawed, and learn why all of the subsequent flight paths drawn on it are utterly useless and invalid.

Then, come on back and let's talk once you have done so. This is about the E in the JREF, and it appears that you are averse to learning.

The tree fort boys are the makers of the silly video that you've been touting in this thread. The diagram is the one upon which they have people draw flight paths in their silly videos.

I find it very difficult to believe that you do not know this, and I find it very telling that you are unwilling to examine the diagram that they use in their silly videos in order to discover its fundamental flaw - a fundamental flaw that renders every single one of the flight paths drawn upon it invalid and entirely devoid of evidentiary value.

Please review the silly video you've been touting before you return, and pay close attention to the diagram that the tree fort boys use. Then, if you can't figure out what's wrong with it on your own, ask the idiots in the tree fort and see if they'll be honest with you. Then, report back here. If they won't tell you what's wrong with it, and if you can't figure it out after making an honest effort to do so, I'll clue you in to why it's leading, and why it renders all of the flight paths drawn on it invalid and of zero evidentiary value.

No, silly boy. I'm talking about the actual paper diagrams that they use in their crappy videos, the ones that they get people to draw purported flight paths on individually.

Go and watch the stupid videos that you are espousing, then come on back when you figure it out.

Now, get to it.