8 out of 8 at Citgo station

[twinstead]

And no, i don't think that the physical evidence would override the eyewitness testimony in a court of law.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but unless you have evidence of tampering, you would be wrong. Consult a lawyer. The physical evidence to support the commonly-held flight path and impact is huge, in the public domain, and solid as a rock. Your agreement or disagreement, as well as mine, is irrelevant.

IMO there's nothing more to be said. Real investigators know all about eye witness accounts

 

[The Big Dog]

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but unless you have evidence of tampering, you would be wrong. Consult a lawyer. The physical evidence to support the commonly-held flight path and impact is huge, in the public domain, and solid as a rock. Your agreement or disagreement, as well as mine, is irrelevant.

IMO there's nothing more to be said. Real investigators know all about eye witness accounts

Interesting comment by Buzz Aldrin the other night: as soon as they landed on the moon, Aldrin said that he slapped Armstrong on the back and said "good job." Armstrong claims that Aldrin is wrong, that in fact they shook hands. So much for eyewitness testimony!

Now if Craig had the editing bay, I'm sure we would be hearing that Aldrin assaulted Armstrong because Armstrong wanted to tell the world that they had landed on a soundstage on Mars!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

TO simplify 37 pages of crap: Even without referring to the existing physical evidence the very methodology CIT relies upon to support their flyover scenario puts it in serious jeopardy due to investigative bias. It will absolutely not hold in court.

 

[I Ratant]

TO simplify 37 pages of crap: Even without referring to the existing physical evidence the very methodology CIT relies upon to support their flyover scenario puts it in serious jeopardy due to investigative bias. It will absolutely not hold in court.

.
Sharia will hold eyewitness testimony superior to any forensics information.
No one would ever lie, when it puts his immortal soul in jeopardy.
Other than than, the real world runs on provable data... unless you have a "Dream Team" of slicks representing you.

 

[twinstead]

I put my immortal soul in jeopardy every time I load this subforum

 

[Mobertermy]

TO simplify 37 pages of crap: Even without referring to the existing physical evidence the very methodology CIT relies upon to support their flyover scenario puts it in serious jeopardy due to investigative bias. It will absolutely not hold in court.

Have any CITers ever thought about how this whole thing would actually play out in an actual court of law? Your entire case is built on witness testimony, yet all the witnesses claim the plane impacted.

 

[twinstead]

Have any CITers ever thought about how this whole thing would actually play out in an actual court of law? Your entire case is built on witness testimony, yet all the witnesses claim the plane impacted.

This would also apply to you. You would be required to provide evidence that NoC damage was moved to SoC

 

[Childlike Empress]

Have any CITers ever thought about how this whole thing would actually play out in an actual court of law? Your entire case is built on witness testimony, yet all the witnesses claim the plane impacted.

And yet there is no crashed jumbo jet to be seen anywhere at the Pentagon. Strange, isn't it? Ever thought about that?

April Gallop's case was dismissed because of an embarrasing argument from incredulity from the judge. That guy would excellently fit in Saudi Arabia.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

.
Sharia will hold eyewitness testimony superior to any forensics information.
No one would ever lie, when it puts his immortal soul in jeopardy.
Other than than, the real world runs on provable data... unless you have a "Dream Team" of slicks representing you.

Have any CITers ever thought about how this whole thing would actually play out in an actual court of law? Your entire case is built on witness testimony, yet all the witnesses claim the plane impacted.

There's obviously a huge body of physical evidence in addition to the eye witness testimony, but discussing that with CIT and its sponsorship is quite difficult to darn near impossible given that they ignore it without a second thought. Their use of statical outliers mainly shows that in addition to their assertions that the physical evidence is faked, there criteria for choosing witnesses is in the same standing. That is what I've pointed out albeit somewhat repetitively, there are multiple points in which their cases falls apart from a single piece failing to hold up. That treatment of evidence is pitiful if not reprehensible when dealing with court cases here in the US

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Have any CITers ever thought about how this whole thing would actually play out in an actual court of law? Your entire case is built on witness testimony, yet all the witnesses claim the plane impacted.

Hey Mobertermy, welcome back. You are right that they could not possibly make a legal case out of their fantasy. The plane cannot have overflown the building as everyone saw it hit. Similarly it can't have hit from NoC as that would leave a trail in that direction.

That leave it coming from SoC and hitting. Now one can still think its all LIHOP or MIHOP but neither of those CTs require the plane to be anything other than AA77 on a SoC route. Insisting otherwise is just the equivalent of those fools that still insist the world is 6000 years old and men rode dinosaurs and does nothing for the truther case other than to make them look foolish.

 

[DGM]

And yet there is no crashed jumbo jet to be seen anywhere at the Pentagon. Strange, isn't it? Ever thought about that?

April Gallop's case was dismissed because of an embarrasing argument from incredulity from the judge. That guy would excellently fit in Saudi Arabia.

Are you thinking if you call a B 757 a "jumbo-jet" it will give your argument more impact? Talk about propaganda.

 

[The Big Dog]

And yet there is no crashed jumbo jet to be seen anywhere at the Pentagon. Strange, isn't it? Ever thought about that?

April Gallop's case was dismissed because of an embarrasing argument from incredulity from the judge. That guy would excellently fit in Saudi Arabia.

Oh wait, do you mean the judge who oversaw Gallop's case where she sued AA for allowing one its jumbo jets to be crashed into the Pentagon, and she took AA's money in settlement?

BWHAHAHA!!!!

CE, you just keep pitching in those soft balls and we'll keep crushing them out of the god damn park!

 

[sheeplesnshills]

And yet there is no crashed jumbo jet to be seen anywhere at the Pentagon. Strange, isn't it? Ever thought about that?

I would be amazed if there was. A 757 is not a Jumbo jet, its not even a widebody jet.

April Gallop's case was dismissed because of an embarrasing argument from incredulity from the judge. That guy would excellently fit in Saudi Arabia.

Really? What was embarrassing about it?

 

[Childlike Empress]

Where is it? What's smoking there? A jumbo jet large commercial airliner?

Someone on youtube is busy deleting the released footage. I've seen much more obvious videos last weekend, they are gone. I think the search terms are "9 11 FBI FOIA Pentagon".

Deal with it. That's part of what a theory has to explain. "Flyover" has yet to be beaten.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

"Flyover" has yet to be beaten.

The isn't any evidence to suggest that the "Flyover" ever took place. It's hard to "beat" a "theory" based on a scenario that doesn't exist.

 

[DGM]

"Flyover" has yet to be beaten.

Would that be the "fly-over" that all of your witnesses say didn't happen? Explain again how you decide which parts of their statements you take and which you ignore?

 

[Jackanory]

Where is it? What's smoking there? A jumbo jet large commercial airliner?

Someone on youtube is busy deleting the released footage. I've seen much more obvious videos last weekend, they are gone. I think the search terms are "9 11 FBI FOIA Pentagon".

Deal with it. That's part of what a theory has to explain. "Flyover" has yet to be beaten.

Long live youtube and all those endless stream of video deletions. In your search for the truth, its a pity you didnt direct us to those you viewed last week. Shame that. Coulda been that smokin gun but you didnt see fit to tell us about them at the time. Another lost opportunity. Never mind..........I'm sure that you will see more, say nothing then tell us about them. lol. How do you keep a straight face?

'Flyover' has been beaten ..................to death.

How many times have the CIT boys pestered witnesses?

How many of those pestered eye witnesses did CIT interview that stated that they saw a 'flyover'.

Didnt those eye witnesses state that the CIT boys where 'CREEPY'?

 

[Childlike Empress]

In fact i did create a 10+ itemed playlist for you that was gone together with the most damning videos, including eyewitness testimony before 10 am, when i checked the next day. You have to take my word for it - which is a novelty in this thread.

Go hunt the Boeing.

 

[beachnut]

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.

You forgot the option about perception, 77 was over Middleton, but so is most of half a universe. Your claims of NoC are failed due to evidence, if you insist on interpreting witnesses with the CIT stupid stick, have at it. Happy New Year.

Witnesses are not evidence. No witnesses are needed to figure out where 77 was, it was never lost, the RADAR was following 77 the entire flight. Why are you clueless? Evidence is FDR found in the Pentagon, RADAR data of the real flight path, and downed lampposts, DNA found in the Pentagon around the real course of Flight 77. Your disrespect for the dead and implying Americans are liars and faked the evidence is par for someone who believes the lies of CIT morons.

You don't have evidence, you have lies and delusions made up by morons. Did they finish high school? All the CIT witnesses agree 77 impacted the Pentagon. What is your point? What was the g-load on the flight paths you posted? Do you do math and physics, or do you only repeat lies from CIT? Where did Flight 77 go? Where are the Passengers?

EVIDENCE never refuted or challenged - RADAR shows 77 from takeoff to impact at the Pentagon, and thousands of pieces of Flight 77 and passenger EVIDENCE never refuted or challenged - DNA was in the Pentagon.
EVIDENCE never refuted or challenged - FDR was found in the Pentagon - EVIDENCE it was 77, had over 24 hours of flights on it from the exact aircraft, Flight 77.
EVIDENCE never refuted or challenged - DNA from passengers was identified, they boarded 77 and crashed into the Pentagon.

This is why CIT are idiots, they have to make up lies about 911 to sell lies about 911. You lack the skills to see CIT are liars, you join CIT in spreading what most 911 truthers find to be idiotic lies. CIT claims, so stupid truthers debunk you and CIT. Too bad they can't debunk their own failed claims.

The following are evidence you can't comprehend, so you ignore.
RADAR, DNA, and the FDR prove your claims to be moronic delusions. Next

 

[DGM]

In fact i did create a 10+ itemed playlist for you that was gone together with the most damning videos, including eyewitness testimony before 10 am, when i checked the next day. You have to take my word for it - which is a novelty in this thread.

Go hunt the Boeing.

Why would we take the time to show you the aircraft pictures again. You only go and claim they're "planted". It must be nice to control reality like that.