8 out of 8 at Citgo station

[Dave Rogers]

You know what? The only question right now is why don't we know exactly what happened?

This is why the truth movement is so harmful. It's a pro-ignorance political movement, that seeks to reduce our understanding of events rather than increase it, because our full and clear understanding of events is not to their liking.

Algebra34, I agree that the question of why you, personally, and a very small few like you are so woefully and shamefully ignorant of events that are common knowledge to your betters, is the only significant one remaining concerning 9/11. Unfortunately, you resist all attempts to help you with your problem, so there's not much we can do. When you want to stop being pig-ignorant, then you might get somewhere, but at present your ignorance is to you a much-cherished jewel. Though bright and shiny to you, the rest of us can see it as having more of a soft consistency and a brown coloration.

Dave

 

[Childlike Empress]

bump de fino

 

[GlennB]

Childlike Empress - yes let's consider that photo of the various NoC witnesses. The one with the several yellow lines.

From CIT's point of view, those yellow lines have to be resolved into a single flight path that accommodates them all. This can be done without too much difficulty.​

But then the problems start.​

This flight path must pass over - or very close to - the annex, curve round NoC and continue to curve round towards the 'flyover point' directly above the supposed 'impact point'.​

We can then make a reasonable estimation of the radius of this curved flight path. We can propose an upper and lower limit on the speed of the aircraft, knowing what we know about the capabilities of such a plane, stalling speeds and so on.​

For the full range of cases we can then apply some very well-established principles to calculate the angle of bank required to make the turn. In every such case we find that a dramatic bank angle is required. An angle that would be unforgettable for any witness. An angle that would be the one common feature of every witness statement.​

Nobody, but nobody, mentions seeing such a bank.​

There is something profoundly wrong with those 'yellow lines'.​

Bump for Childlike Empress

 

[Garb]

bump de fino

This is rich considering you are dodging a question(statement) I put up, which is perfectly reasonable.

 

[Meed]

You avoided my questions as well... (after claiming you were "all ears" no less).

 

[Childlike Empress]

Citizen Investigation Team European Tour - September 2010

September 6, 2010 Faläen, Belgium
September 7, 2010 Paris, France
September 9, 2010 Grenoble, France
September 11, 2010 Paris, France
September 13, 2010 Freiburg, Germany
September 14, 2010 Lausanne, Switzerland
September 16, 2010 London, England

Good luck!

 

[jaydeehess]

CE, will you ever get around to answering the questions posed in the last 25 or so posts here?

How about my questions in the other thread?

 

[Childlike Empress]

I'll come back to your post in the general discussion thread. Here is nothing to say. The conditions are outlined very early in the thread.

 

[achimspok]

Who is deceptive?




Edwardpointsouth.gif

Sorry but Ranke is a liar.
This is the real location where Paik was and where he saw the plane passing his shop.

If it was "over" his shop then he wouldn't have seen it at all. That's what Ranke don't tell.
The speed of the plane tells a lot about how fast Paik would have to run to the middle of the street to see the plane at least disappear above the Navy Annex.
He had 2 seconds at best if the plane would have flown "over" the Annex.

Btw, here is a long discussion about that CIT nonsense (among us twoofers so to say).
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3490445/1/
That discussion took place before Warren Stutt and Frank Legge got ready with the FDR paper. Therefore some flightpath close to the VDOT (not above) was accepted as probable by all the witness interviews. The rest is a little bit of perspective, a little bit of confusion and some very dubious part of Ranke et al.

 

[twinstead]

Many different sects in the truth cult

 

[achimspok]

Many different sects in the truth cult

It isn't a cult. That's why...

 

[Childlike Empress]

Btw, here is a long discussion about that CIT nonsense (among us twoofers so to say).
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3490445/1/

No, thanks. I'll pass. Know what, Achim, among us twoofers? If the truth movement is not a cult, i'd suggest you stick to topics like WTC you are well informed about and try to get something done, instead of ignorantly accusing people of being liars who have done more than their fair share to investigate 9/11. You base your opinion on deceptive 2nd hand material.

 

[beachnut]

It isn't a cult. That's why...

The CD delusion guys are a cult, based on ignorance. The CIT guys are math morons, part of the cult you are in; unable to figure out 911. You attack NIST, CIT attacks math and logic; something you both share. You think your presentations are better, but they are as flawed as CIT's work, in a different way.

The best part is seeing your sect, you, debunk the CIT sect; you have no clue you are in the same cult.

 

[carlitos]

Many different sects in the truth cult

It's like Pentacostals arguing with Baptists.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Ah, i read the first half page of that thread now, Achim. I was clearly mistaken - you are not deceived.

Correct me if i'm wrong when i count you on Option 3.

I am refering to more than a dozen witnesses who were contacted by CIT after being on official record as witnesses, invited on scene and asked to clarify the statements they made in 2001. They independently and unanimously describe a flight path so different from the official one, that a plane approaching on this path couldn't cause the physical damage. They were (if they aren't acting) not aware of the implications of what they had seen, they simply told their story.

That's the problem and that's the evidence: corroborated witness testimony. If you have a better theory than "flyover" to explain the evidence, go ahead.

If you don't accept the evidence, you must explain it away. Caustic Logic says that the witnesses are in on it. Remember, most of them were on official record since 2001.

So, what's your opinion?

1) The witnesses are all mistaken in the same bizarre way.
2) They are actors payed by CIT to pose as the real on record witnesses.
3) They are part of a disinfo operation that fooled CIT.
4) They honestly and accurately describe what they have witnessed.

1)
apathoid
BCR
beachnut
DGM
funk de fino

2)
-

3)
achimspok
Caustic Logic

4)
Algebra34
Childlike Empress
mudlark

 

[twinstead]

It's like Pentacostals arguing with Baptists.

Exactly.

 

[twinstead]

Ah, i read the first half page of that thread now, Achim. I was clearly mistaken - you are not deceived.

Correct me if i'm wrong when i count you on Option 3.




1)
apathoid
BCR
beachnut
DGM
funk de fino

2)
-

3)
achimspok
Caustic Logic

4)
Algebra34
Childlike Empress
mudlark

Don't think that you don't have some 'splainin' to do when the physical evidence is taken into account. Unless you believe it was all planted and nobody noticed in some bizarre way. You look at it that the evidence just had to be planted because eye witnesses accounts conflict with it. I believe those witnesses just had to be mistaken because the physical evidence conflicts with it.

So even with NO evidence that the physical evidence was manufactured or planted do you think it's more likely it was than the witnesses who report NoC are mistaken? What conclusion to you think a jury would come to?

 

[triforcharity]

I am refering to more than a dozen witnesses who were contacted by CIT after being on official record as witnesses, invited on scene and asked to clarify the statements they made in 2001. They independently and unanimously describe a flight path so different from the official one, that a plane approaching on this path couldn't cause the physical damage. They were (if they aren't acting) not aware of the implications of what they had seen, they simply told their story.

That's the problem and that's the evidence: corroborated witness testimony. If you have a better theory than "flyover" to explain the evidence, go ahead.

If you don't accept the evidence, you must explain it away. Caustic Logic says that the witnesses are in on it. Remember, most of them were on official record since 2001.

So, what's your opinion?

1) The witnesses are all mistaken in the same bizarre way.
2) They are actors payed by CIT to pose as the real on record witnesses.
3) They are part of a disinfo operation that fooled CIT.
4) They honestly and accurately describe what they have witnessed.

Can you name the two fallacies that appear in your post?

I'll give you a hint.

One deals with poison and a well, the other has to do with a dilemma.

 

[Dave Rogers]

They independently and unanimously describe a flight path so different from the official one, that a plane approaching on this path couldn't cause the physical damage.

This is not actually true. A better statement might be:

They independently describe a range of different flight paths, each individually so different from the official one, that a plane approaching on this path couldn't cause the physical damage.

The witness testimony isn't "corroborated", because the flight paths don't actually agree. It's a classic example of the false dilemma fallacy; not all flight paths north of Citgo are the same.

1) The witnesses are all mistaken in the same bizarre way.
2) They are actors payed by CIT to pose as the real on record witnesses.
3) They are part of a disinfo operation that fooled CIT.
4) They honestly and accurately describe what they have witnessed.

5) The witnesses were all influenced by leading questions to modify their recollections after the event in line with what the questioners persuaded them was the actual flight path.

Since many truthers believe that this is more or less how the perceptions of the public have been influenced so as to agree with what they misleadingly describe as "the official story", it seems to me that this flavour of sauce tastes equally good with gander.

Dave

 

[Childlike Empress]

5) The witnesses were all influenced by leading questions to modify their recollections after the event in line with what the questioners persuaded them was the actual flight path.

The collective debunkery has yet to show any of this. If you want, pick up where we got distracted:

That makes it 2:0 for me. Paik, Morin.

We can go down the list, it's really not difficult to understand because CIT have such a good job in presenting it.

We are coming now to the CITGO witnesses themselves. Tell us how they fit, apathoid.