8 out of 8 at Citgo station

[Grizzly Bear]

Option 4) is also taken.

Yes indeed it is, I added it since you failed to define it: Option 4) represents that CIT knowingly uses a selection bias in its witness testimony and will ignore physical evidence that corroborates the overwhelming agreement of another 80+ witness accounts. As it's already taken, you will have to add your next "choice" to #6.

Selection bias (source):
When the treatment and control groups involved in the program are initially statistically unequal in terms of one or more of the factors of interest. This is a threat to internal validity.
A threat to the representativeness of a sample which occurs when the procedures used to select a sample result in the over- or underrepresentation of a significant segment of the population.
a bias in assignment or a confounding variable that arises from study design rather than by chance. These can occur when the study and control groups are chosen so that they differ from each other by one or more factors that may affect the outcome of the study.

The other symptom is that those, such as yourself, and CIT will ignore the selection bias, and pretend regardless of obviousness that they can hand wave it without everyone else noticing. As I keep telling you, sampling requires representation of the entire witness body, not a select group as you vehemently seem determined to keep.

There is also an option 5, which has been demonstrated in the contents of this very thread by yourself, and CIT members no less, wherein the arguments of those you interview are manipulated and distorted, then taken to mean something entirely different.

The interesting thing about your "choice" quiz is that there are multiple answers that can go together. For example Option 3 defined earlier by yourself represents that witnesses were mistaken, accompanies Option 4 and option 5.

Your transparent attempts to limit the choices into a false dilemma are rejected.

Anybody who cares can understand the argument.

I suspect if CIT and its advocates really cared they would not have spent the last few years transparently dodging questions about their investigative methods. It's fairly obvious they would rather have no part in answering why they would focus on the statistical outliers and deliberately misconstrue anything to suggest that witness aren't perfect beings, or make erroneous unsupported remarks that the physical evidence is planted when it's inconvenient for them.

 

[Childlike Empress]

That's better. I think that you've drawn it too high and my line is more accurate. If anybody wants to check and give a third opinion, go ahead.

It is not necessary, though, because my point still stands. Even if it's on your line, it's above the trees in height, but still behind the trees in distance. The movement from beachnut's polygon to the Pentagon - straight and high speed - is nothing like what the witnesses describe.

And yet your buddy YougeneDebs uses out of context stills and words of the witnesses to deceptively try to make their testimony fit the "official/real" flight path.

He fails.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Your transparent attempts to limit the choices into a false dilemma are rejected.

You can come up with more choices as long as you accept the premise - the corroborated eyewitness testimony exists and needs an explanation.

Regarding your selection bias - we are still waiting for one single SoC witness.

 

[I Ratant]

Feel free to do so. personally I have no issue with understanding where north is on that or any other picture of the area. In the case above it makes no difference as its simply routes as described in witness statements.

.
You do.
But your canted images can leave false impressions in others.
It takes less effort to be consistent, and remain coherent, to present such stuff in a conventional (to other people) manner.
Right, left, north, south, best illustrated in a consistent manner.
Your image has the airplane approaching from the north, if that image isn't further looked at to see how it is skewed.
Skewing things is Twinkie stuff.

 

[I Ratant]

You can come up with more choices as long as you accept the premise - the corroborated eyewitness testimony exists and needs an explanation.

Regarding your selection bias - we are still waiting for one single SoC witness.

.
I have to conclude (I do that alot) that you are unbalanced.

 

[Childlike Empress]

.
I have to conclude (I do that alot) that you are unbalanced.

Of course you have to. You are at a point where your worldview doesn't allow you to continue to follow the evidence.

Care to come up with a SoC witness? That's someone who was in a good position to judge and describes the plane on the official path and speed, contradicting the NoC witnesses. Good luck.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Regarding your selection bias - we are still waiting for one single SoC witness.

Something better exists; physical evidence. No amount of cherry picking or selection bias will get you out of it. Sorry, but that's reality.

the corroborated eyewitness testimony exists and needs an explanation.

The testimony represents an outlier group, and is easily shown to be in error by the physical evidence marking the trajectory of the plane. Furthermore, CIT failed, and continues to fail at representing a full, representative sample of research in the witness body. Shifting the burden of proof does not give you a free pass to dodge the question, so I suggest if you have any issues with this answer you elaborate (something we'd hoped you'd do sooner rather than later).

 

[beachnut]

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.

CIT witnesses point to the real flight path. The CIT flight paths are impossible due to physics, and math, Physics and math are two things CIT and Balsamo are morons at. 11.2g moron math is still posted to fool idiots at pilots for truth delusional web site where delusions are lapped up by cult members, and Balsamo Socks, and debunker socks posting insults to Balsamo disguised as part of the peanut gallery dumbed down comments.

You were officially debunked by a truther who thinks his delusions are rational and real, while your delusions are proved wrong with "science". He lucked out and is correct, but he has anti-intellectual delusions on 911 just like you do. He is a truther who thinks he is right, and he did debunk you. But then there is the DNA, the FDR found in the Pentagon with real data Balsamo can't figure out, RADAR, and a path of damage which matches all the other tons of evidence. You were debunked on 911, how many years will it take for you to catch up. Flight 93 passengers figured out 911 in minutes; they set the standard, and they took action.

Middleton points to the official flight path. RADAR proves it. Oh, you forgot about RADAR from multiple sites. Right, Balsamo has to say this is fake, but Balsamo is not fake he is a failed aviator who can't do math, has no clue what Vmo is, and has one black suit when he appears on truTV with Jesse the Body. Bet you like American Wrestling. Fantasy for your fantasy.

 

[Childlike Empress]

CIT witnesses point to the real flight path.

Ah, backpeddling. Of course they point to the real flight path. Which is not the official one. Check:

Next - William Middleton, Arlington Cemetary. 34 min in.

National Security Alert

 

[The Big Dog]

Ah, backpeddling. Of course they point to the real flight path. Which is not the official one. Check:

There appears to be a problem with your link.

You have linked to a piece of fiction narrated by a Shaky Middle Aged Fraudster, and his troll like buddy.

Can you link us to the actual raw video?

You know, the raw uncut video unbesmirched by the completely implausible ridiculous voice over and fraudulent editing? Thanks!

/and by the way, I have to give you an A for effort in trying to bury the fact that your heroes were absolutely destroyed by other truthers. Good for you! Keep on Truthering!

 

[Childlike Empress]

Can you link us to the actual raw video?

You know, the raw uncut video unbesmirched by the completely implausible ridiculous voice over and fraudulent editing? Thanks!

I've asked you last year what you expect to be in that "raw video". Paik turning around and saying "I was just kidding, the plane flew over there behind the VDOT."?

You failed to answer and continued with your usual hysterical and uncivil babbling. Get out of my sun, son.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

=Childlike Empress;

It is not necessary, though, because my point still stands. Even if it's on your line, it's above the trees in height, but still behind the trees in distance.

How can you tell if its behind, over or in front of the trees, Unless you were very familiar with 757s and knowing exactly how big they are and how big the look like from varying distance (and I'm will to bet that none of the CIT NoC Witnesses are, then you and they cannot possibly have a clue where it was relative to the citgo.

However the shadow will fall on objects on the ground......and the shadow that day would have fallen well to the north of where the actual aircraft would be...........is it not possible that they see the plane and its shadow and assume one is over the other when they are not.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

You can come up with more choices as long as you accept the premise - the corroborated eyewitness testimony exists and needs an explanation."

They were mistaken or misled or both.

Regarding your selection bias - we are still waiting for one single SoC witness.

Mr Morin, Ms Zakhem are two for starters. You pretending that they can see through buildings or are shills does not mean they don't exist.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

CE can complain all she likes about the flight path of Flight 77. She's wrong anyway she slices it.

CE,

Stop bitching about the flight path!

 

[The Big Dog]

I've asked you last year what you expect to be in that "raw video". Paik turning around and saying "I was just kidding, the plane flew over there behind the VDOT."?

You failed to answer and continued with your usual hysterical and uncivil babbling. Get out of my sun, son.

Ahhh, here we see the truther seeking the truth! She has no curiosity regarding what the witnesses actually said, just what a couple of nitwits chose to show us!

Now, let us start with Paik, shall we? It would be interesting to know, would it not, that Paik told the CITiots that he was inside the building when he saw the plane, which would undoubtedly put the plane on the South of Citgo path, and furthermore, would establish the lack of bank angle which would have been required to get the plane from south of his business, to North of the Citgo and back again, right?

But you don't care? Really?

You don't care that the video might support Pickering's claims that CIT was misleading the witnesses? Really?

Go link to your fiction, CE, I am enjoying your slow implosion.

But when you do, kindly refrain from using the word "evidence" because you don't give a damn about it.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I've asked you last year what you expect to be in that "raw video". Paik turning around and saying "I was just kidding, the plane flew over there behind the VDOT."?

I expect to see a lot of "leading the witness" and lots of other comments and actions by witnesses that were cut because they did not fit their lie.
Prove me wrong

[/QUOTE]You failed to answer and continued with your usual hysterical and uncivil babbling. Get out of my sun, son.[/QUOTE]

LOL you about as in the dark as its possible to be and the only sunshine you see is that shining out of CITs A$$

 

[I Ratant]

Of course you have to. You are at a point where your worldview doesn't allow you to continue to follow the evidence.

Care to come up with a SoC witness? That's someone who was in a good position to judge and describes the plane on the official path and speed, contradicting the NoC witnesses. Good luck.

.
I don't care what people say they saw, or didn't, in any exciting event.
70,000 (that's seventy thousand) people witnessed the Sun doing loop-de-loops October 13, 1917. Honest to god type witnesses.
Interviewed and all.
The millions fighting World War I on that same day didn't notice anything other than the usual amount of death on both sides of the trenches.
.
The flight recorder on AA 77 as it flew into the Pentagon is THE witness.
It had no agenda, no biases, just the facts, ma'am.
Airspeed this much, altitude that much, heading this direction.... everything places the airplane, AA 77, in space and time along the official flight path.
Event recorders are now getting common in cars, because of the unreliability of witnesses.
Data recorders are a diagnostic tool, which has to record facts to be reliable for that purpose, which includes monitoring ordinary events in the car, as well as accidents.
The flight recorder data when analyzed, in AA 77 places the flight path south of the Citgo station at a low altitude, high speed, and flying towards the northeast, until the data stops.
Therefore, the plane, which was AA 77, flew into the Pentagon, passing to the south of the Citgo station.
You'll have to bring out 76,988 more witnesses to break the current record of bad witnessing.
I watched a plane in flames crashing. As I watched, I heard someone else in the crowd yell "There's a parachute!"... there was no parachute, the pilot rode the plane in to the crash and fireball. We -wanted- to see a parachute, but it didn't happen.
Watched another plane on fire crash, and break into little pieces on impact.
No parachute.
Someone in the crowd went berserk because the fire crews didn't speed to the scene. With large pieces of the plane tossed around due to the speed at the impact, the pilot would be in pieces also. The fire crews know that.
I have the films of both as they occurred.
There is no sane reason to debate or consider anything other than the official story of the AA 77 crash into the Pentagon, or UAL 93 into the field in Pennsylvania, with even fewer witnesses, coherent or not.
Political fanatics caused those and the two crashes at the Towers.

 

[Childlike Empress]

How can you tell if its behind, over or in front of the trees

I can tell where it is (again, "behind the trees" is not the point) because i know where the view is taken from and i know where the flight paths are. I marked it for you (exactly enough) in the following overview:

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I can tell where it is (again, "behind the trees" is not the point) because i know where the view is taken from and i know where the flight paths are. I marked it for you (exactly enough) in the following overview:

[qimg]http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/9721/cemeteryiv.jpg[/qimg]

But you weren't there to see Flight 77 at those locations. So how can we trust you?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I can tell where it is (again, "behind the trees" is not the point) because i know where the view is taken from and i know where the flight paths are. I marked it for you (exactly enough) in the following overview:

[qimg]http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/9721/cemeteryiv.jpg[/qimg]

ROTFLOL the lines are drawn by people that cannot tell how far away the plane is! They are guessing with their lines and you can't prove anything from their guesses!

Unless the sun is directly overhead and hence shadow is directly under the aircraft OR the plane flys in front of an object or behind an object you CANNOT possibly tell at a quick glance how far away it is. You would have to know the size of the object relative to the size of every other object in your field of view. This would be tricky even if there was a high def video of the flight from the Cemetery and its impossible for them in the one split second they saw the plane over the Citgo.