8 out of 8 at Citgo station

[sheeplesnshills]

How does he see a plane over his shop when he was in his shop?

especially when he also says he thought it hit the VDOT tower..........

 

[carlitos]

It's called North/South of CITGO because the CITGO is the crucial vantage point where no mistakes are possible.

You really said that. About years-later eyewitness testimony about seeing a plane in the sky and attempting to gauge directionality, distance, speed, etc., all of which happened moments before a huge catastrophic event. Wow.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

No, it's very misleading to claim that someone who reports the same as all the other witnesses - that the plane approached over the Navy Annex and flew between the cemetery and (north of) the CITGO station - is a "SoC" witness as if the argument would be that the plane was ALWAYS NORTH OF THE CITGO. Knowing perfectly well that this is not the argument. That's misleading. I told you what a SoC witness is:

Paik can have no idea where the plane went as even running oiutside his office he still cannot see Navy Annex let alone the Citgo. Any route he draws is just a wild guess.
Morin of course says he see the plane fly down to the Pentagon which makes him a SoC witness unless he possesses Xray eyes

It's called North/South of CITGO because the CITGO is the crucial vantage point where no mistakes are possible.

Neither of those witnesses can possibly see it so its of no relevance in their statements.

 

[Childlike Empress]

@carlitos: People who watched their testimony while being on Google Maps/Earth understand perfectly well why they can't be mistaken about "north" and "south". Lagasse: "I don't have eyes on my back".

People who are too lazy to follow the discussion are not my audience. They don't matter anyway.

 

[Childlike Empress]

I'd say, like C.E. in the other thread, "invincible ignorance".
Incapable of learning something different from the imprinted belief.

I Ratant, did I debunk the YougeneDebs video? Yes or no.

 

[Myriad]

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.

Good luck indeed, at this blatantly dishonest game. There it is in absolutely clear, black and white: to be a SoC witness it is not sufficient for a witness to describe the plane's path as south of the Citgo station; they must describe it on the official path and speed, to whatever degree of precision CE feels like demanding. And they must be in a good position to judge, for whatever requirements of "good" CE feels like imposing. (A tree branch, nine years later, is somewhere in the line of sight? Not good enough!)

Sorry, not buying a ticket. A SoC witness is any witness who describes the plane on a path passing south of the Citgo (whether or not the witness mentions the Citgo station). Period. Any other requirement is a double standard that immediately invalidates any comparisons you are making between the number or quality of "NoC vs. SoC" witnesses.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[carlitos]

@carlitos: People who watched their testimony while being on Google Maps/Earth understand perfectly well why they can't be mistaken about "north" and "south". Lagasse: "I don't have eyes on my back".

People who are too lazy to follow the discussion are not my audience. They don't matter anyway.

 

[tsig]

@carlitos: People who watched their testimony while being on Google Maps/Earth understand perfectly well why they can't be mistaken about "north" and "south". Lagasse: "I don't have eyes on my back".

People who are too lazy to follow the discussion are not my audience. They don't matter anyway.

Glad I've read every post then. I'm still having a hard time visualizing him seeing the plane while he's inside the station.

You do agree he was inside?

 

[tsig]

No, it's very misleading to claim that someone who reports the same as all the other witnesses - that the plane approached over the Navy Annex and flew between the cemetery and (north of) the CITGO station - is a "SoC" witness as if the argument would be that the plane was ALWAYS NORTH OF THE CITGO. Knowing perfectly well that this is not the argument. That's misleading. I told you what a SoC witness is:




It's called North/South of CITGO because the CITGO is the crucial vantage point where no mistakes are possible.




Sure.

Yes the CITGO is the high tide of the CIT.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

@carlitos: People who watched their testimony while being on Google Maps/Earth understand perfectly well why they can't be mistaken about "north" and "south". Lagasse: "I don't have eyes on my back".

People who are too lazy to follow the discussion are not my audience. They don't matter anyway.

but you know that LaGasse was not where CIT said he was so any statement he makes has to taken with a pinch of salt. He simply misremembers what he saw 7 years before. The route was unimportant then compared to the impact he witnesses so he had no strong memory of where he was. Curious why you think he cannot be mistaken about the route but MUST be mistaken about the impact and no flyover. You can't have it both ways. If you doubt he saw the impact then you must equally doubt the route. To claim otherwise is simply cherry picking.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Good luck indeed, at this blatantly dishonest game. There it is in absolutely clear, black and white: to be a SoC witness it is not sufficient for a witness to describe the plane's path as south of the Citgo station; they must describe it on the official path and speed, to whatever degree of precision CE feels like demanding. And they must be in a good position to judge, for whatever requirements of "good" CE feels like imposing. (A tree branch, nine years later, is somewhere in the line of sight? Not good enough!)

Sorry, not buying a ticket. A SoC witness is any witness who describes the plane on a path passing south of the Citgo (whether or not the witness mentions the Citgo station). Period. Any other requirement is a double standard that immediately invalidates any comparisons you are making between the number or quality of "NoC vs. SoC" witnesses.

Respectfully,
Myriad

If i would use the convoluted "logic" of 16.5 and cohorts I could claim that ANYBODY who thinks he has seen a plane hit the Pentagon is a NoC witness, because guess what - the place of damage is north of the CITGO:

Of course this would be equally dishonest as the duhbunkie claims of Paik and Morin being "SoC" witnesses - because it has nothing to do with the flight path controversy.

 

[tsig]

but you know that LaGasse was not where CIT said he was so any statement he makes has to taken with a pinch of salt. He simply misremembers what he saw 7 years before. The route was unimportant then compared to the impact he witnesses so he had no strong memory of where he was. Curious why you think he cannot be mistaken about the route but MUST be mistaken about the impact and no flyover. You can't have it both ways. If you doubt he saw the impact then you must equally doubt the route. To claim otherwise is simply cherry picking.

He needs one of these:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picker

 

[DGM]

If i would use the convoluted "logic" of 16.5 and cohorts I could claim that ANYBODY who thinks he has seen a plane hit the Pentagon is a NoC witness, because guess what - the place of damage is north of the CITGO:

[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/AllGroupsMap.jpg[/qimg]

Of course this would be equally dishonest as the duhbunkie claims of Paik and Morin being "SoC" witnesses - because it has nothing to do with the flight path controversy.

I believe if you look Morin and Paik are indeed south of the Citgo. So by logic that would make them SoC witnesses.

So again you fail.

 

[twinstead]

If i would use the convoluted "logic" of 16.5 and cohorts I could claim that ANYBODY who thinks he has seen a plane hit the Pentagon is a NoC witness, because guess what - the place of damage is north of the CITGO:

You don't go quite that far, but the logic you DO use is almost as bad. He has a point; your criteria for making a witness a SoC witness is WAY more stringent than your criteria for making a witness a NoC witness. It is not done accidentally.

Of course this would be equally dishonest as the duhbunkie claims of Paik and Morin being "SoC" witnesses - because it has nothing to do with the flight path controversy.

Flap any more and you might get airborne.

 

[Childlike Empress]

You do agree he was inside?

No. I would have to check it in detail and suspect it would turn out that CIT reported honestly and you guys made up **** like it always turned out so far. But i'm not going to do it because it doesn't matter. The plane crosses Columbia Pike and flys over Paik's shop means it wasn't on the NTSB path, regardless of the question if Paik was in his shop or outside..

 

[Childlike Empress]

I believe if you look Morin and Paik are indeed south of the Citgo. So by logic that would make them SoC witnesses.

So again you fail.

 

[I Ratant]

I Ratant, did I debunk the YougeneDebs video? Yes or no.

.
Dunno.
Your "analysis" of everything here appears more anal than useful.
The number of credible witnesses who observed AA 77 at many points in the DC area before it flew into the Pentagon are many more than those at or near the CitGo station.
The most credible, the ANG pilot of the C-130 who was directed to change his intended flight to try to see what AA 77 was doing in the DC area identified that plane as an American Airlines plane flying well outside the expected locations such planes are usually encountered, and performing strangely, until flying into the west side of the Pentagon.
This trumps the "Elwood P. Suggins" witnesses who had no aircraft experience at all.
I've attached the cobbled video intended I guess to incite the Suggins' believers to rage about the gummint conspiracy takes the actual data from the C-130 flight experience and gets Fetzer to go ballistic on what the airplane (he says there was an airplane... !!!) could or couldn't do, without explaining what that was.
And another video of a French Air Force KC-135 doing pretty much what AA 77 did on 9/11/2001, before AA 77 flew into the west side of the Pentagon that day, as so many people saw.
.
C-130-Pentagon-Fetzer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFTNPEmZHXE
.
French C-135 Low pass
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZT4BdI7STE

 

[Childlike Empress]

He has a point;

No he hasn't.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Dunno.

Exactly. And the reason is that you don't dare to investigate. So much about "imprinted belief".

 

[I Ratant]

Exactly. And the reason is that you don't dare to investigate. So much about "imprinted belief".

Eugene Victor Debs (November 5, 1855 – October 20, 1926) was an American union leader, one of the founding members of the International Labor Union and the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), and several times the candidate of the Socialist Party of America for President of the United States.
.
Dead.
75 years before AA 77 flew into the Pentagon on 9/11/2001.
And many years before video or Youtube.
I've seen an excellent animation of AA 77, the Boeing 757 which flew into the Pentagon on 9/11/2001, pointing out each pole and equipment on the ground it struck, but can't find it.
As to -your- debunking of anything, dumbesilleh.