8 out of 8 at Citgo station

[DGM]

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

Where did you "draw it"? All I see is a label stating "behind trees". Got anything more than that or should I just take your word?

 

[Childlike Empress]

Where did you "draw it"? All I see is a label stating "behind trees". Got anything more than that or should I just take your word?

Yes, DGM. If you don't believe me, you can check it. You don't have to take my word for it. It's always useful in a discussion to look at which side provides evidence to back up their claims.

beachnut, your polygon looks more like an 8, not a 77. I'll let that post speak for itself.

 

[Childlike Empress]

And the point is not that it's behind the trees but that it never was to the right of what is now the distasteful memorial if it was on the "real/official" flight path. Drawing it higher would have been difficult because of perspective problems - with the label it's clear.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes, DGM. If you don't believe me, you can check it. You don't have to take my word for it. It's always useful in a discussion to look at which side provides evidence to back up their claims.

beachnut, your polygon looks more like an 8, not a 77. I'll let that post speak for itself.

Wait, CIT released their raw video?

No Way!

/just joshing, CE, we know that ain't gonna happen. But at least you are not a complete and utter hypocrite about it.

 

[DGM]

Yes, DGM. If you don't believe me, you can check it. You don't have to take my word for it. It's always useful in a discussion to look at which side provides evidence to back up their claims.

beachnut, your polygon looks more like an 8, not a 77. I'll let that post speak for itself.

What is your evidence the Navy building would have blocked the view. According to the "official" flight path it was (more or less) over Columbia pike at an altitude that would be higher then the building.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Go to 37 min in the NSA video and listen to what the witnesses say. Then watch the video posted by LashL.

 

[DGM]

Go to 37 min in the NSA video and listen to what the witnesses say. Then watch the video posted by LashL.

No thanks. You said the plane could not be seen on the "official" path. What do you base this on. What was the "official" altitude as the plane crossed the Navy building. Surly you know this to make the statement you did.

 

[The Big Dog]

Go to 37 min in the NSA video and listen to what the witnesses say. Then watch the video posted by LashL.

And for god's sake make sure you hit the "Report" button on that website so that CIT can move its Operation Accountability forward.

/lulz!
//oh CE, you are a treasure.

 

[beachnut]

Yes, DGM. If you don't believe me, you can check it. You don't have to take my word for it. It's always useful in a discussion to look at which side provides evidence to back up their claims.

beachnut, your polygon looks more like an 8, not a 77. I'll let that post speak for itself.

The top of the object next to the Navy Annex is where 77 was on 911; it is what CIT witnesses are pointing to. My graphics are junk, but I am not selling lies to idiots, fooling the uniformed. CIT have to make up fancy stuff to fool those too lazy to think for themselves.

I was just checking where 77 would be in relation to the witnesses so I could prove to myself they are pointing at 77. They ARE! I was laughing hard when I saw CIT video, for the NoC, and all the witnesses describing the official flight path of 77. The angle and direction they point, are to 77's flight path. If you could do geometry you can figure it out. CIT use Balsamo math, 11.2gs of failure. Did CIT finish high school?

All I need in the field is a protractor and a yard stick. The witness is asked to line up the yard stick toward where they saw the aircraft and I have one line in the 3D world, the real world. Then I go find a person on the other side and do the same. Then I have a point. It is very funny how the witnesses are video, I can use them to verify they are pointing to the correct flight path.

On 911 we have 4 or 5 independent RADAR stations, proving the flight path, and backed up with the FDR. Don't need witnesses to verify the flight path. Witnesses in aircraft accident investigations are used to verify or help understand events like wings falling off. We need to know where it happened. On 911 the flight path is from RADAR, witnesses are not needed. I find it funny you can't do the geometry to realize the CIT witnesses are pointing to the official flight path, the flight path verified by RADAR, FDR, and damage (impact). Why can't you do geometry? BTW, never have witnesses draw flight paths, we never ask them for things like that. We have witnesses write down what they saw, and some witnesses are taken to the field and asked to point to where they saw the aircraft.

CIT failed. If you can't figure out my graphic, no wonder you you can't figure out your graphic failed and RADAR. RADAR proves CIT are liars, CIT proves CIT are liars. Good luck with your fantasy world where geometry is not used, logic is not used, and CIT rules.

 

[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???????

Of course I see something wrong with that logic.

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.

Sorry, it seemed that Mober's post was a defence of the supposed NoC witnesses being correct. If I was not right then, my bad.

If I extrapolated beyond that errorneously, my bad.

I will have to try to keep up with who believes what, a little more

 

[twinstead]

I will have to try to keep up with who believes what, a little more

Good luck with that. You need a scorecard to keep up with the different sects of the truth cult

 

[Childlike Empress]

I was just checking where 77 would be in relation to the witnesses so I could prove to myself they are pointing at 77. They ARE!

Care to prove it to the audience? We were at the CITGO station.

 

[Childlike Empress]

for convenience

I'd prefer if we'd stick to the chronolgical order. Paik, Morin, now it's time for the CITGO witnesses. How does their testimony fit with Paik/Morin and/or the "real/official" flightpath?

Witness testimonies start ~ 16 min in
CITGO witnesses start ~ 21 min in

Middleton ~ 33 min
Cemetary witnesses ~37 min

National Security Alert

 

[Childlike Empress]

No thanks. You said the plane could not be seen on the "official" path. What do you base this on. What was the "official" altitude as the plane crossed the Navy building. Surly you know this to make the statement you did.

Dear, you will fail class if you don't do your homework. You go check that official data and use my still to draw it accurately and correct me. The point i made with the picture will still stand, and you'll get better grades. Deal?

 

[DGM]

Dear, you will fail class if you don't do your homework. You go check that official data and use my still to draw it accurately and correct me. The point i made with the picture will still stand, and you'll get better grades. Deal?

Sure. I'll draw a line and then you can prove me wrong. Your claim, now back it up!

 

[Childlike Empress]

Sure. I'll draw a line and then you can prove me wrong. Your claim, now back it up!

You are the one who makes a claim. You claim that my picture is not accurate enough to illustrate my point. You have yet to make your argument. Or comment on the point, for that matter.

 

[DGM]

You are the one who makes a claim. You claim that my picture is not accurate enough to illustrate my point. You have yet to make your argument. Or comment on the point, for that matter.

My claim is backed by ALL the physical evidence.

 

[twinstead]

My claim is backed by ALL the physical evidence.

He has a point, CE. Your only response has to be to claim the physical evidence was planted, but you have no evidence for that.

How would a court of law handle that, CE?

 

[funk de fino]

I think you're above simply linking to a youtube video with no comment or explanation, CE

You would be very mistaken.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Actually, beachnut's polygon is not so bad at all - Here you see the line i tried to indicate continued backwards to the Annex. I would stop it at the memorial because of the perspective, but being generous it touches beachnut's polygon.

All of this fundamentally contradicts what the witnesses describe and makes the YougeneDebs video a load of hogwash.