8 out of 8 at Citgo station

[Childlike Empress]

Childlike, Chomsky, I mean achimspok thinks the Pentagon is a big nonsensical conspiracy, but he is too afraid to define his delusion. At least you try to support a defined nut case theory, while achimspok hides his delusions.

He's making up ****. Just like you.

 

[Thunder]

I don't get it.

Truthers say there was no airplane that hit the Pentagon.

And so they are using witnesses that saw the airplane that hit the Pentagon, in order to prove that the FAA FDR info is flawed and therefore no plane hit the Pentagon?

Hmmmmm....and they wonder why we call them "twoofers".

 

[sheeplesnshills]

btw, to the guys who came up with the F-4 video: If the plane turned into a rain of debris that dissappeared before it hit the ground ... then how did it create the "exit hole" on the C-Ring of the Pentagon? Hmm?

???? the rain of debris was after it hit not before. As I've told you before, the wings and tail ended up like the Phantom (with the addition of fuel, the phantoms tanks were full of water) they destroyed the limestone facing and themselves in the process. The fuselage was long enough and had enough mass to punch right through the exterior and several of the rings walls with very last of the KE consumed in making the exit hole. The fuel from the centre tank was carried into the building. So only shreds of wings and tail (plus one engine) outside, all the rest inside, in the fire.

 

[Childlike Empress]

???? the rain of debris was after it hit not before. As I've told you before, the wings and tail ended up like the Phantom (with the addition of fuel, the phantoms tanks were full of water) they destroyed the limestone facing and themselves in the process. The fuselage was long enough and had enough mass to punch right through the exterior and several of the rings walls with very last of the KE consumed in making the exit hole. The fuel from the centre tank was carried into the building. So only shreds of wings and tail (plus one engine) outside, all the rest inside, in the fire.

Makes no sense. Eighter it's capable of penetrating the walls and cause the "exit hole" - then it would still be there, which it isn't. Or it's not capable of penetrating and disappeared in a rain of debris - which never hit the pentalawn and couldn't cause the "exit hole". What happened to the engines?

 

[Thunder]

are there any pictures of the debris inside the inner lawn of the Pentagon?

 

[achimspok]

Give it up, Achim. Credibility capital used up.

Surprise me without your credibility nonsense.

Altitude of wingroot 8.8 meters?
It crashed straight through the sheraton first?
Common, do something for your credibility!

 

[Childlike Empress]

Thunder, on page one you find a video called "National Security Alert". I suggest you watch it and read the thread if you are interested in the topic.

No, the pictures of the "exit hole" don't show identifiable plane debris.

 

[achimspok]

Makes no sense. Eighter it's capable of penetrating the walls and cause the "exit hole" - then it would still be there, which it isn't. Or it's not capable of penetrating and disappeared in a rain of debris - which never hit the pentalawn and couldn't cause the "exit hole". What happened to the engines?

What did the line of FBI agents and Pentagon employees on the lawn?
(Pssst, listen to the Morin testimony! Pssst, read the Lagasse emails!)

 

[I Ratant]

Makes no sense. Eighter it's capable of penetrating the walls and cause the "exit hole" - then it would still be there, which it isn't. Or it's not capable of penetrating and disappeared in a rain of debris - which never hit the pentalawn and couldn't cause the "exit hole". What happened to the engines?

.
There's all kinds of photos of parts of the disintegrated Boeing 757 inside the Pentagon.
An airplane is a lightly constructed tube filled mostly with air, and never intended nor designed to impact anything head on at its maximum speed and not become metal confetti.
The denser parts can penetrate further than the lighter parts. And the paths through what any part may hit will be different depending on the amount of matter it may have, and the amount of resisting matter it impacts.
This should be obvious.
That it isn't obvious shows a serious failing in the ability to relate to the real world.
But that's CTwinkie land, no matter what the "conspiracy" might be.
"Reasoning" of no higher substance than "If today isn't the 4th of July, it must be Christmas", with no allowance for 362 other possibilities.
.
"No airplane, and the witnesses place it north of the Citgo station".
.
Totally senseless.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Achim, that's from the interview your buddy Larson did with Paik. Why don't you direct us to the source and explain what you mean with your super-red formula? Does it calculate the angle of Paik's right "wing" in a still or am i missing something? Oh, wait ...

 

[Childlike Empress]

There's all kinds of photos of parts of the disintegrated Boeing 757 inside the Pentagon.

No there aren't. Did you locate the NTSB animation yet? What's in it is all there is.

edit for the research challenged:

Maybe it's helpful to post the full body of evidence for a crashed 757 (although it's not the topic of this thread). Fits in under 7 min and mostly contains a couple of photographs of dubious origin. It's the famous "NTSB animation". That's at least what i've heard them they call it, but it's somehow semi-official. As close as you can come to an "official story" at the Pentagon.

Study the opening slides carefully. "Counter intuitive outcome" indeed. The people who made it cared about plausible deniability.



edit: Also pay attention to where the plane goes in that animation. It simply disappears.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Lets get this straight (yet again):

CIT's own witnesses state that the plane impacted the Pentagon.

Their case for faking physical evidence is built upon the testimony that the flight path traversed the north side of the Citgo station.

For a jury, CIT needs to prove that one component of the testimony is wrong and the other is correct. But invalidating their witness testimony discredits their entire testimony.

"CIT" and it's sponsorship have divulged aggressive behavior, treating all witness outside of their "NOC" group as "hostile" and completely omit them.

"CIT" leads their audience during witness cross-examination and contaminates them by offering their personal opinions.

"CIT" uses selection bias, for their witness sampling

The majority of CIT witnesses provide some form of testimony that they themselves diagree with; mainly in whether or not the plane hit the building. In a court case CIT is obligated to treat their explanations by objectively examining the evidence, they can't speculate, they can't offer their "opinions." In court they cannot wave the fly over theory as some miraculous magic trick. The entire premise of their case is built on speculation, they have no physical evidence to support anything they're spouting.

Wonder how a court will handle that

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

Your assumption just killed any chance you had at presenting a competent court case. In the legal world physical evidence trumps eye witness testimony, 100% of the time. That is absolutely not arguable. Every contact leaves a trace, and if as you have repeatedly contended in the past any of the physical evidences was "faked" then there would be EVIDENCE that it was FAKED. You trump PHYSICAL EVIDENCE with PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. If you had it you would have presented it long ago.

"Wherever he steps, wherever he touches, whatever he leaves, even without consciousness, will serve as a silent witness against him. Not only his fingerprints or his footprints, but his hair, the fibers from his clothes, the glass he breaks, the tool mark he leaves, the paint he scratches, the blood or semen he deposits or collects. All of these and more, bear mute witness against him. This is evidence that does not forget. It is not confused by the excitement of the moment. It is not absent because human witnesses are. It is factual evidence. Physical evidence cannot be wrong, it cannot perjure itself, it cannot be wholly absent. Only human failure to find it, study and understand it, can diminish its value."
~Edmond Locard

If you have PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to support your case, then present it. Your selective eye witness sampling is far from sufficient to be of any value, and you're in no position to shift the burden of proof. If you can't expand past the biased witness sampling or provide a stronger case then this thread has no need to run for another 30 pages.

 

[achimspok]

Achim, that's from the interview your buddy Larson did with Paik. Why don't you direct us to the source and explain what you mean with your super-red formula? Does it calculate the angle of Paik's right "wing" in a still or am i missing something? Oh, wait ...

Still waiting.

 

[beachnut]

Makes no sense. Eighter it's capable of penetrating the walls and cause the "exit hole" - then it would still be there, which it isn't. Or it's not capable of penetrating and disappeared in a rain of debris - which never hit the pentalawn and couldn't cause the "exit hole". What happened to the engines?

Here is an engine. Reminds me when a J-57 ejected a disk on take-off, the turbine blades melted into the tar in the joints in the runway.

Engines, I don't need no stinking engines.

Are CIT on a European vacation? Did they hijack CE's computer?

CE, are you being serious or in need of typing and English practice.

If the Pentagon was done by explosives, April Gallup would be dead. The only way people survive near the impact zone is due to a kinetic energy event, not a bomb. I guess you never served in the military.

 

[Thunder]

again...are there any pictures of airplane debris on the Pentagon's inner lawn?

 

[Arus808]

42 pages peopole aruging about CIT's theories.. you know the one they practically gave up 2 years after they spouted it?

Yeah, the theory that the theory creators themselves have ignored for the past 2 years.

 

[achimspok]

Interesting that your rant doesn't contain a single SoC witness. Quelle surprise. If you don't like the thread, don't let the door hit you.

CIT witness Lagasse:

"Question 12..I was picking things up after we had pulled everyone that was alive out of the building

...

Question 14 The idiots that say an engine landed in the north parking lot are pretty dense, ALL of the recovered debris was taken to the North parking DAYS later by trucks and sifted through by cadaver dogs and evidence personnel...so there was actually TWO engines there as well as every bit of wreckage and building debris from the hole that was made.

...

Question 18....I saw allot of little pieces..I would assume a great deal was melted but all of that was removed and taken to the north parking lot..like I said before.

 

[achimspok]

Where are Morins trees?

 

[achimspok]

Sources for Lagasse's statements. You can't expect me to take anything you say at face value, Achim. Not after your show here. I only knew that you are one of the "CD guys" when i read your first post here, and my first answer was absolutely honest and unbiases. You brought this uopn yourself.

Source for Lagasse's emails is Dick Eastman's website, right where the CIT clowns got it and deceided to look a little "deeper" into that "starboard thing".
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/6-29-03/discussion.cgi.106.html

http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/6-27-03/discussion.cgi.98.html

Funny side story: First time I heard your name was when a member of this forum recommended one of your WTC videos to me in private. I never watched it, but that member is now an "ex-Truther". Well done, Achim.

If you are a Truther then I wouldn't riddle that much about the WHY!
I guess you are some ex-No-Planer who decided not to watch my video but to convert into a fly-over specialist. Well done, Childlike Empress!

 

[achimspok]

I think that you've drawn it too high and my line is more accurate.

My source is the FDR. What's your source again for "behind the trees"?