8 out of 8 at Citgo station

[Grizzly Bear]

That's not agreeing with CIT, that's agreeing with reality.

You're not arguing reality, you're inventing your own rules for what defines witness testimony. Outliers in witness testimony exist, the fact that you and the rest of the CIT sponsorship has yet to figure out how to use testimony as evidence properly is not my problem. Nor is the dishonesty in obtusely inflating outliers as the main witness body for your case.

 

[Childlike Empress]

You haven't been exactly helpful in the year that this thread is going, and i doubt you have anything of value to add, so why should i care about your problems? Take them elsewhere.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Instead of caring about my "problems" (whatever they are), you should prioritize the more immediate damage that using outliers as your entire witness body has caused to the credibility of the CIT flyover theory you're advocating. It pretty much kills it on arrival <edit> seeing as witnesses by the CIT theory definition either have picture perfect memory, or are government shills and absolutely nothing in between<edit>.

 

[Childlike Empress]

That's your strawman and has nothing to do with the discussion. Be specific or go play somewhere else.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Middleton, anybody?

 

[Childlike Empress]

A least you can debunk CIT. We all have our limits. Your failed claims on 911, the CD delusion, are as bad as CIT's flyover delusions. ... great work debunking CIT, their videos also debunk them.

Boah, Achim, read that? I would feel insulted by that guy who refuses to back up his delusional claims that the CIT witnesses all point to the official flightpath here, but instead continues to rely on the audiences gullibility in other threads.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Be specific

source

With added support given by the physical evidence to verify the flight path (such at impact point and light pole displacement)

As I said before, out of roughly 100 witnesses you're hawking on 8, which are statistical outliers given the strong agreement between the remaining ones, and still report the plane as crashing in the pentagon. It's hard to think that CIT and it's advocates wouldn't be aware of the full witness body after this period of time. It's quite an act I have to admit.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Just curious, what is your reason for omitting them? Are you willing to shed some light here?

Not at the moment (but i gave clues). I'm not omitting them, they are just not the topic of this thread. I stated my intention.

 

[Childlike Empress]

In other words, you have to come up with SoC witnesses (0), not with witnesses who think a plane hit the Pentagon.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Middleton, anybody?

so choose ....who is lying/mistaken about their testimony?

Morin or Middleton, CIT chose Morin which is hilarious as he is a SoC witness.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

In other words, you have to come up with SoC witnesses (0)

Don't need to. The trajectory between the light poles knocked down and the crash site speak louder than a few outliers. Simple as that, and CIT is unable to offer any feasible case for suggesting any part of that trajectory was faked, rendering the NOC theory moot, and proving that witness are not perfect.

 

[twinstead]

That whole physical evidence thing is still a hot potato, huh CE?

 

[Childlike Empress]

so choose ....who is lying/mistaken about their testimony?

You. Your drawn flight paths are equally absurd as in your recent illustration of the north and south paths. The truth lies somewhere in the middle, as anyone who saw their testimony would suspect.

What do you say to the fact that Middleton would have barely seen the plane at all if it would have been on the "official/real" flightpath?

 

[Childlike Empress]

Don't need to. The trajectory between the light poles knocked down and the crash site speak louder than a few outliers. Simple as that, and CIT is unable to offer any feasible case for suggesting any part of that trajectory was faked, rendering the NOC theory moot, and proving that witness are not perfect.

So where should i add you? 1) witnesses mistaken or 3) disinfo ?

 

[I Ratant]

GODDAMNIT!
Put NORTH at the top of the *********** map!
Like this.
Then, all flight paths can be rationally compared, without having to twist anything around!
Jesus Christ, is that so hard to comprehend?

 

[Childlike Empress]

It's all smoke and mirrors. Go check my words, I Ratant.

 

[twinstead]

So where should i add you? 1) witnesses mistaken or 3) disinfo ?

Wow. Not a peep about the physical evidence. Do you think it was faked, and if so can you provide evidence it was?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

So where should i add you? 1) witnesses mistaken or 3) disinfo ?

Option 2):
CIT knowingly biases sampling of witness testimony, and omits physical evidence which overrules them. It doesn't get much more straight forward than that.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Sorry, but option 2) is reserved for

2) They are actors payed by CIT to pose as the real on record witnesses.

Another one who doesn't have the balls to admit the existence of the evidence (regardless of where it leads to). Don't waste our time. Next.

 

[carlitos]

Hi CE. In English the past perfect of "pay" is "paid" not payed. I could see where you'd pick up the other version, lurking on CIT websites or whatever.