8 out of 8 at Citgo station

[twinstead]

last post: I am refering to more than a dozen witnesses who were contacted by CIT after being on official record as witnesses, invited on scene and asked to clarify the statements they made in 2001. They independently and unanimously describe a flight path so different from the official one, that a plane approaching on this path couldn't cause the physical damage. They were (if they aren't acting) not aware of the implications of what they had seen, they simply told their story.

And what about those witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon? What of the witnesses who describe a flight path that is consistent with the "official story"? Why do WE have to deal with CITs witnesses when they choose not do deal with ones who contradict them, except call them liars?

 

[HyJinX]

CE - How do explain the photo in post #135? Is that not Lloyd standing next to his cab?

Either you're playing dumb to get attention or you've closed the gates of reason and rationality in your mind. Either way...it truly is Childlike.

 

[Childlike Empress]

It's Lloyd standing next to his cab with the unscratched hood, out of which he and a unnamed stranger who didn't say a word had just pulled a really large lightpole that was hit by a really fast airplane, in a place he never was.

No more posts from me in this thread to people who don't show basic honesty by answering the question i again clarified in #139.

 

[Arus808]

It's Lloyd standing next to his cab with the unscratched hood

Irrelevant. His car is damaged or you don't notice that big honking hole in his windshield.

did you notice that the light pole that did hit his car (not if, IT DID hit his car) was bent? It hit his car, but didn't "scratch' his hood because of that bend in the pole.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Flight 77 hit the Pentagon reguardless!

About those videos the Truthers always bitch about, you guys forget that they also took pictures of the wreckage & no, they were not "faked" either. Faking something like Bigfoot or the Loc Ness Monster is a possibility, but never a plane crash. Get some common sense please!

 

[HyJinX]

It's Lloyd standing next to his cab with the unscratched hood, out of which he and a unnamed stranger who didn't say a word had just pulled a really large lightpole that was hit by a really fast airplane, in a place he never was.

No more posts from me in this thread to people who don't show basic honesty by answering the question i again clarified in #139.

You ask many questions in that post....but if you want to run away...I understand.

 

[twinstead]

No more posts from me in this thread to people who don't show basic honesty by answering the question i again clarified in #139.

It's not a good question because it also applies to you concerning the vast amount of physical evidence and eye-witness testimony that contradicts your position. You should come up with a better question.

 

[funk de fino]

The taxi driver implicated himself. The most creepy part of "NSA" are the fifteen minutes about Lloyd, when Craig tries to get him to admit that he and his Taxi were where the photos show him to be, and Lloyd insists that he wasn't there, but claims to have been where the NoC path would require him to be. That's outright surreal.

Yes, creepy that those assclowns would harrass an oldd man who is clearly not too sharp.

You neglected the rest of the CIT shame I mentioned. You have seriously gone down in my estimation.

 

[funk de fino]

And so you thought you could omit what he stated later? To trick me? Or were you "quite sure" that he closely followed what the plane did because YOU haven't watched "NSA" but derive your knowledge of the issue from secondary sources alone? Which one is it?

And I asked you for evidence for your other earlier allegations, not for a lenghty argument from incredulity.

last post: I am refering to more than a dozen witnesses who were contacted by CIT after being on official record as witnesses, invited on scene and asked to clarify the statements they made in 2001. They independently and unanimously describe a flight path so different from the official one, that a plane approaching on this path couldn't cause the physical damage. They were (if they aren't acting) not aware of the implications of what they had seen, they simply told their story.

That's the problem and that's the evidence: corroborated witness testimony. If you have a better theory than "flyover" to explain the evidence, go ahead.

If you don't accept the evidence, you must explain it away. Caustic Logic says that the witnesses are in on it. Remember, most of them were on official record since 2001.

So, what's your opinion?

1) The witnesses are all mistaken in the same bizarre way.
2) They are actors payed by CIT to pose as the real on record witnesses.
3) They are part of a disinfo operation that fooled CIT.
4) They honestly and accurately describe what they have witnessed.

Correct. Everything else proves this to be the case. Lagasse was even mistaken about what he did and where he was in relation to the pumps.

Paik showed them exactly where the flightpath was and they edited it to try and shoehorn it into their falsehoods.

 

[The Big Dog]

It's Lloyd standing next to his cab with the unscratched hood, out of which he and a unnamed stranger who didn't say a word had just pulled a really large lightpole that was hit by a really fast airplane, in a place he never was.

Hee hee! God damn, that is the true No Planer babble we have been looking for!

Hell yes! the CIT mutts actually saw the damage to the rear seat, and they, like the rest of the No Planers, hand wave it away.

Fantastic.

 

[DGM]

And so you thought you could omit what he stated later? To trick me? Or were you "quite sure" that he closely followed what the plane did because YOU haven't watched "NSA" but derive your knowledge of the issue from secondary sources alone? Which one is it?

And I asked you for evidence for your other earlier allegations, not for a lenghty argument from incredulity.

last post: I am refering to more than a dozen witnesses who were contacted by CIT after being on official record as witnesses, invited on scene and asked to clarify the statements they made in 2001. They independently and unanimously describe a flight path so different from the official one, that a plane approaching on this path couldn't cause the physical damage. They were (if they aren't acting) not aware of the implications of what they had seen, they simply told their story.

That's the problem and that's the evidence: corroborated witness testimony. If you have a better theory than "flyover" to explain the evidence, go ahead.

If you don't accept the evidence, you must explain it away. Caustic Logic says that the witnesses are in on it. Remember, most of them were on official record since 2001.

So, what's your opinion?

1) The witnesses are all mistaken in the same bizarre way.
2) They are actors payed by CIT to pose as the real on record witnesses.
3) They are part of a disinfo operation that fooled CIT.
4) They honestly and accurately describe what they have witnessed.

I say #1 (less the "bizarre way") and #4. It's no secret that the human memory is subjective at best. This combined with the fact that they hand wave aspects of their own witnesses that don't fit their (I'm at a loss for a word).

Now why do you think they ignore (or claim they lie) all the other witnesses and physical evidence.

 

[twinstead]

Paik showed them exactly where the flightpath was and they edited it to try and shoehorn it into their falsehoods.

He's that guy that was pointing exactly toward the "official story" path, but whose image was edited to make it look like he was pointing somewhere else, right?

 

[beachnut]

It's Lloyd standing next to his cab with the unscratched hood, out of which he and a unnamed stranger who didn't say a word had just pulled a really large lightpole that was hit by a really fast airplane, in a place he never was.

No more posts from me in this thread to people who don't show basic honesty by answering the question i again clarified in #139.

The lamppost is light weight, why would it dent the hood more than it did? If it did or not is not a problem, I have worked with damage windshield and wedged in objects. Some windshields are very tenacious, see Lloyd's car? This proves Lloyd was there, and in the United States people who expose the government messing up get Pulitzer Prizes; see Watergate! The plane was really fast, 483 KIAS when it went by Lloyd, and knocked the lamppost into his car. 77 also cutup the tree some. Gee, you fail to use evidence but pay attention to the biggest dolts in history, CIT. most anti-intellectual.

So, what's your opinion?

1) The witnesses are all mistaken in the same bizarre way.
After 5 years? LOL, how sad you pose this stupid question. The witnesses point to the south path; do you need a compass next time you waste time watching the most pathetic tripe on 911 from CIT? Not one of the flight paths drawn is possible, and they are all different! WHY? Because people on the ground to the side of high speed plane they have never seen or studied before can't describe the ground track with accuracy, the only one who drew one path that matches close to the real path was Paik, one of his was right down the road, but even his drawn path does not match his testimony, he said 77 hit or almost hit the VDOT tower. Darn, if you use his testimony it matches the real flight path. But Paik pointing on video actually is very close to the real path if you pay attention. The witnesses off to the side can't draw a path, it is impossible. Can you use their testimony, yes they point to the south and with proper interview techniques you can support the real path. The best part is all the witnesses agree 77 hit the lampposts and hit the Pentagon. And all their paths end at the impact point! LOL, this is very cool. Funny as in how stupid is CIT?
2) They are actors payed by CIT to pose as the real on record witnesses.
No, they are real people who point to the south, the real path, it is funny when you know the real path. CIT are pure stupid.
3) They are part of a disinfo operation that fooled CIT.
No, CIT is trying to sell DVD of CT. They can't interview the best witnesses because they look like drug nut case dirt bags. The people who fell for CIT video scam were being polite not knowing they were being quote minded and represented as support for moronic delusions.
4) They honestly and accurately describe what they have witnessed.
They did honestly describe what they saw. Don't you have the blind men and the elephant story in Germany? We all learn in first grade in the United States that what we percieve may not be what really happen.

Why did the observations presented 5 (FIVE YEARS AFTER) year after 911 not match the actual path of Flight 77 which all CIT witnesses agree impacted the Pentagon? Illusions anyone?
Size of plane! Size matters, if you think the plane should be smaller, you place the plane closer to you since it is LARGE! Who besides me has been within 550 feet of a large jet going 500 mph? NO ONE Therefore the distortions of where the plane is, is based on what the people are use to describing; not one of the witnesses save the pilots and those in the military, would be use to watching planes up close and fast.

Speed, when is the last time people only saw a plane for a second or two cover 1600 feet in two seconds and describe it accurately. Gee whiz it take two seconds for you to react to a new experience and take some sort of action, and that reaction could be to freeze and watch it happen! Speed gave these witnesses only a second or two to see. After 5 years; How funny it is that CIT is believed or given credibility save a few fringe people who also have nut case ideas on the topic.

There are more problems with taking testimony from people 5 years later, but if you love the CIT presentation and give any credence to any of the lies, it is self critiquing. The proper question for rational people who are skeptical of all claims on both sides are to expose why there are errors in the testimony. What causes our perception problems? Were humans made to figure out and draw flight paths from a god’s eye view with our senses?

I am a trained aircraft accident investigator and find all the testimony presented by CIT to support the real flight path which knocked down lamppost and impacted the Pentagon and flew the last two second on an average heading true track of 61.5 degrees. The aircraft dynamics shown in the FDR support the witness statements when you understand the FDR, aircraft dynamics, flying, RADAR, airspeed, wind, and other factors. I don’t see anything wrong with the witness statements, if you have not worked aircraft accidents and taken testimony you will not understand if you don’t try to educate yourself and instead prefer acting like a CIT support who can’t understand 911 after 8 years.

how dumbed down does it have to be to attract those who fail to think for themselves - why is there an audience for the moronic tripe dished out by CIT - much better questions

 

[Childlike Empress]

Would you post that animated gif of Edward Paik for me again, beachnut?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Not one single person on the planet saw Flight 77 fly over the Pentagon.

Boger states it hit the Pentagon and he watched it and heard it do so. CIT call him a liar. They called the taxi driver an accomplice to murder. They lied about the locations of the lightpoles. They refuse to put up unedited interviews despite saying they would. They edited Paiks pictures to try and show a flightpath that was incorrect.

Game over.

quoted for truth
As far as I'm concerned the totality of the evidence has always, and still does point to flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. No amount of witness mining on the part of CIT or anyone related will change this. The debates been over for some time now. CE, we're almost at 2010, 2006 was about 4 years ago; move on. And for god sake everybody else do the same (in a good way)

 

[Childlike Empress]

Would you post that animated gif of Edward Paik for me again, beachnut?

I mean the labeled image you (IIRC) posted that is supposed to show how Paik pointed in the direction supporting the official flightpath, and CIT misrepresented his claim. Paik is the first witness included in "NSA" and we could take this step by step. Thanks to you, DGM and Mr de fino for answering my question. Three votes for unanimously mistaken witnesses, most of them working everyday at the scene and reporting something from a day we all remember exactly where we were. We can take it on from here after Christmas.

cu folks, have a nice time!

 

[funk de fino]

I mean the labeled image you (IIRC) posted that is supposed to show how Paik pointed in the direction supporting the official flightpath, and CIT misrepresented his claim. Paik is the first witness included in "NSA" and we could take this step by step. Thanks to you, DGM and Mr de fino for answering my question. Three votes for unanimously mistaken witnesses, most of them working everyday at the scene and reporting something from a day we all remember exactly where we were. We can take it on from here after Christmas.

cu folks, have a nice time!

I remember where I was on 911, I remember where I watched it unfold. I cannot remember what I was wearing. I cannot remember what day it was. I cannot remember who it was who ran in and said to go watch the TV upstairs. I cannot remember what side of the table I sat at to watch the footage or exactly who watched it with me.

CIT are the lowest of the low. This is truly an astounding troll or you are in need of help.

And its funk de fino. I will not tell you again.

 

[funk de fino]

Read the thread in context. CIT belonged into that list for a while, until it turned out that they are NOT an easy target. Since then, the debunkers refuse to debate and the duhbunkies post spam.

Thats a lie. Plain and simple.

 

[The Big Dog]

I mean the labeled image you (IIRC) posted that is supposed to show how Paik pointed in the direction supporting the official flightpath, and CIT misrepresented his claim. Paik is the first witness included in "NSA" and we could take this step by step. !

Yeah, lets do that!

Lets put the plane where Paik put it, and then where Morin put it, then bank North of Citgo, and then over the impact site, where Boger put it!

Lets do that, that is absolute ****ing GENIUS CE!! Hey CE, did the mutts tell you the freaking wings fell off?

God, I love CITiots.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It seems to me Childlike Empress has taken some lessons at the bill smith School of Trolling and realized that actively backing the most retarded fantasies from the Truth Movement is the best way to work people up...

Just an observation.