8 out of 8 at Citgo station

[sheeplesnshills]

This is the lady who already sued American Airlines ...............so if there was no Plane why she sue an Airline?

She obviously was at the edge of the damage area and was just lucky. There was very little recognizable wreckage so its not surprising she didn't recognize anything....add shock, concern for her child etc this does not constitute evidence of anything.
Her second court case with Balsammo as "expert" witness was laughed out of court.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Arbiet Macht Frie...........

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Hilariously, the scathing irony remains that even if we wanted to be biased to a sample of 10% or less of all the witnesses, you still have all of them putting the plane inside the Pentagon at the end of the flight path. Screw the NOC theory if "CIT" refuses to own up to their distortions.

 

[The Big Dog]

Really? That's a helluva story, Achim. Weird guys. Well, I wasn't that far away from your option 5), was I? Disinfo, you say. Interesting.

Pointless video snipped

Pointless video snipped

Next time, CE, just post a white flag. It'll save us all a lot of time, and damage to our eyeballs due to rolling them after reading your posts.

 

[Mobertermy]

And this should be obvious considering the fact that none of these witnesses have come out in support of CIT's presentations. If I'm not mistaken some have come out claiming the opposite. (I don't have the links handy, or care).

From what I know the witnesses stand by their accounts....the plane flew NoC then hit the building.

 

[DGM]

From what I know the witnesses stand by their accounts....the plane flew NoC then hit the building.

Could you link to their statement of support of the CIT argument?

 

[carlitos]

deleted

 

[LashL]

This is a good video about perspective viz the Pentagon on 9/11.

 

[jaydeehess]

Hilariously, the scathing irony remains that even if we wanted to be biased to a sample of 10% or less of all the witnesses, you still have all of them putting the plane inside the Pentagon at the end of the flight path. Screw the NOC theory if "CIT" refuses to own up to their distortions.

A point at which the CiT then claim that every single solitary person, from all positions and angles, who witnessed the scene was bamboozled and completely missed the high speed flyover and ascent of a large jet aircraft.

They go from taking a small subset of witnesses who were mistaken in describing various NoC flightpaths, and a small subset of witness statements that the CiT mash and manipulate into something that resembles a NoC flightpath; to lumping ALL witnesses into a group that was fooled into believeing that this aircraft hit the Pentagon when supposedly it actually flew over the structure and rose out of sight unseen by all.
Furthermore the CiT then suppose that something else caused the death and destruction in the building.

The choices are;
A)an explosive placed outside the walls of the Pentagon
Problem: the generator moved TOWARDS the Pentagon wall indicating that the force that it encountered was directed at it from further out from the wall than the generator's original position, which if the case, would mean that there should be a crater in the lawn or at least severely scorched earth. There is no evidence of this. Thus the contention is shown to be false.
B) explosives placed within the Pentagon
Problem: 100 feet of the ground floor wall is missing and this large amount of brick and concrete is not in evidence on the lawn in front of the wall where it would be if an explosion had blown out that section of the ground floor wall. Thus the contention is shown to be false.


All senarios that do not include a large rapid mass impact are subsets of the two above.
OTOH a large impacting mass satisfies all aspects of the scene at the Pentagon. Generator clipped and moves towards the Pentagon wall. Object is 90-100 feet wide and 20-30 feet tall taking out 90-100 feet of ground floor wall and about 20 feet of the second floor wall. Mass disintegrates as it passes into the structure dissapating its energy throughout the structure and thus creating a much smaller exit damage than entrance.

 

[jaydeehess]

From what I know the witnesses stand by their accounts....the plane flew NoC then hit the building.

So, a small subset of witnesses say it flew to the north of an object on the ground(while the plane was of course in the air); and ALL witnesses (to the final moments) indicate that the aircraft hit the Pentagon ...............

and this leads the CiT to declare that first of all the majority of witnesses, and the radar data were incorrect, AND second, that each and every witness who states they saw impact are incorrect..

,,,,,,,,and you see nothing wrong with that logic???????

 

[Mobertermy]

So, a small subset of witnesses say it flew to the north of an object on the ground(while the plane was of course in the air); and ALL witnesses (to the final moments) indicate that the aircraft hit the Pentagon ...............

and this leads the CiT to declare that first of all the majority of witnesses, and the radar data were incorrect, AND second, that each and every witness who states they saw impact are incorrect..

,,,,,,,,and you see nothing wrong with that logic???????

Of course I see something wrong with that logic.

 

[twinstead]

Although IMO both are totally untenable, Mobertermy and CIT have major differences in their theories, from what I can see. I would expect Mobertermy to see something wrong with CIT's logic.

 

[BCR]

From what I know the witnesses stand by their accounts....the plane flew NoC then hit the building.

And every one of those witnesses were located NORTH of the flight path. Strange how that works ain't it

 

[Childlike Empress]

This is a good video about perspective viz the Pentagon on 9/11.

Mind-blowingly stoopit. Make sure to watch it till the very end where he admits that the "question" he feigns to debunk is just a strawman he set up at 3:19 min.

To understand why his flight path construction based on the cemetery witnesses is equally bogus, i've attached a still of 3:59 min with the "official/real" flight path indicated.

You fall for this nonsense?

 

[DGM]

Mind-blowingly stoopit. Make sure to watch it till the very end where he admits that the "question" he feigns to debunk is just a strawman he set up at 3:19 min.

To understand why his flight path construction based on the cemetery witnesses is equally bogus, i've attached a still of 3:59 min with the "official/real" flight path indicated.

You fall for this nonsense?

So your claim is the plane (on the "official path") was too low to see?

 

[Childlike Empress]

If you think you can draw it more accurately, go ahead. Will only prove my point.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Question for Childlike Empress:

If Flight 77 "wasn't seen", how can you account for the witnesses who saw it fly into the Pentagon from the adjacant highway?

 

[twinstead]

If Flight 77 "wasn't seen", how can you account for the witnesses who saw it fly into the Pentagon from the adjacant highway?

I wonder if it was it too low to be seen when it pulled up and over the Pentagon?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I wonder if it was it too low to be seen when it pulled up and over the Pentagon?

Don't ya just love Truthers contradicting themselves?

 

[beachnut]

Mind-blowingly stoopit. Make sure to watch it till the very end where he admits that the "question" he feigns to debunk is just a strawman he set up at 3:19 min.

To understand why his flight path construction based on the cemetery witnesses is equally bogus, i've attached a still of 3:59 min with the "official/real" flight path indicated.

You fall for this nonsense?

You failed again, the witnesses saw 77 on the ~61.2 to 61.5 true course. They all pointed to the exact place where 77 would be on the official flight, and they saw 77, on the official flight path. It so obvious I don't need to interview them like I did witnesses to other crashes I investigated because they are on Video pointing to exactly where 77 was. You post a lie and think you have something, but since you are not trained to investigate squat, your opinion falls short of being more than poppycock. And Paik is still pointing to the south flight path, and you have no clue as CIT make up lies based moronic delusions.

The Paik pointing to where 77 was; south, not NoC. The official flight path, the real flight path, not NoC. But go ahead keep a delusion, don't try to learn why all the witnesses point to the real flight path, not NoC. It is funny, my proof is in CIT videos you must be too lazy to watch and figure out where south is. I was laughing as I downloaded CIT videos proving they are idiots.

See the polygon (Balsamo will need help to figure out what a polygon is) over the Navy Annex? That is 77, at the correct altitude and course, and we are where a few witnesses pointed to that flight path. BINGO

When you make up lies like 77 was behind the trees, you need to realize on the NoC it would be in trees for you lie and failed attempt to defend idiots, CIT.

Physics, aerodynamics, and evidence keep your NoC in the world of delusions on 911.

Wow, you used a funny lens to make the scene look like JFK driving by far away; you have not been to Dallas, or DC. You have been fooled, taken, and you have no clue.

I don't need to check this stuff, but I did to see how stupid people have to be to believe the lies. CIT sell lies to the gullible like you; they don't care what happened on 911 as long as they make money. Gage made over 70k selling BS, donations, on 911, Balsamo makes enough to buy a black suit and live in Turbofans basement.

Are you saying Flight 77 was flying through the trees? How did it get from NoC through the trees? It is uncanny how the CIT witnesses point to the exact position where 77 was on the official flight path. Not one is pointing way up to the NoC. The NoC would be right on top of some of them, and they are pointing way over to the official fight path. Do you need help using a protractor? Can you estimate angles? Did you do any reality based analysis of the Witnesses? I have worked aircraft accidents as board president, pilot member, investigator and more, and your efforts are not up to speed.