8 out of 8 at Citgo station

tj15 said:
I haven't read the whole thread, but I have a question for both sides of the debate...

1. Why did the "conspirators" create a plan that was so complex and so full of risk (by flying the plane over the Pentagon, planting evidence, ect) when they could have just crashed the plane into the Pentagon?

2. Middleton claims to have felt the heat from the plane as it passed by. Is this possible on the SOC flight path?
Click to expand...

Anyone have a serious answer to question #1?
 
tj15 said:
Anyone have a serious answer to question #1?
Click to expand...
Dunno who you'd rather get an answer from but my own speculation is that they believe the "perpetrators" had little confidence in the ability of a plane to hit the building in the first place.

I see the claim that the Pentagon "was the most secure building in the world" quite a lot and that the lack of "protection" "proves" a conspiracy somewhere, but it really doesn't address their idea that some other aircraft was involved or why. Nor does it touch on any elaborate bomb rigging, & witness/debris planting. They seem to have a disconnect between the idea that the plane flew on a so called different path + elaborate scene rigging and the practicality of keeping things "simplified" with just the aircraft.

If you're looking for an answer from someone who actually supports the CIT theory, good luck with that. I don't think I've ever seen them offer up a reason for going the complex route.
 
tj15 said:
Anyone have a serious answer to question #1?
Click to expand...

Mobertermy's answer, as I understand it, is something like this:
AA77 was intended to hit the Pentagon on the SoC heading. Explosives were pre-planted in the Pentagon to cause damage which would appear consistent with the impact of an airliner on the SoC heading, but very much greater because the impact of an airliner would not be expected to do serious damage to the building (1). The airliner failed to follow the intended course, and in fact struck the Pentagon on the NoC course. The damage to the building was caused by the pre-planted explosives detonating according to plan, and as expected the damage from the actual airliner crash was so negligible as to leave no indication of the different approach course. Nefarious means were then used to convince all those investigating the crash that the airliner had in fact approached on the SoC course, by falsifying photographs to show light poles further south than their original locations and/or re-siting light poles and associated debris to positions consistent with the southern approach. This was necessary because any investigation would indicate a southern approach for the airliner from the building damage pattern.

There is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of this. It assumes that the damage to the Pentagon was both (a) sufficiently consistent with the impact due to an airliner striking it on the SoC path to fool any investigators, and at the same time (b) so much greater than the maximum amount of damage that an airliner could possibly inflict that the damage from the real impact was not discernable by comparison. The need for the deception assumes, therefore, that investigators were highly knowledgeable about the distribution of damage expected from a particular approach path, yet utterly unaware of the far more basic point that virtually none of this damage should in fact have occurred.

As with most other truther conjectures, it requires an Orwellian ability to believe two contradictory ideas simultaneously. Which, of course, is rather ironic.

Dave
 
Last edited:
tj15 said:
Has CIT ever answered the question I asked?
Click to expand...

CIt never answer questions, they just block you. I often suggest to the milder form of truther that they test p4T, loose change etc by playing devils advocate and questioning some of the assertions made and see what happens.........

Now if they were really interested in the "truth", why would they do that?:confused:
 
Do I have this right?... The north path theory believers believe that just about everything with the Pentagon attack was staged and the south path theory believers believe CIT's witnesses got it wrong.
 
tj15 said:
Do I have this right?... The north path theory believers believe that just about everything with the Pentagon attack was staged
Click to expand...

Yes.
and the south path theory believers believe CIT's witnesses got it wrong.
Click to expand...

'Wrong' would connote greater incompetance than I would suggest is the case. I would say that they were incorrect. (semantics)
In fact though the CiT also believe that every single person who was in a position to see either the impact site or the roof line of the Pentagon also was incorrect in as much as all those who were in position to see the aircraft all the way up to the Pentagon say it "HIT" the building and no one else says it flew OVER the Pentagon.(This includes Boger who watched the aircraft approah him and impact the Building to his left. CiT claims he is outright lieing about having seen impact saying he would have been cowering on the floor of the helipad control tower!)
 
Last edited:
You're half right, CE. The die-hard 'truthers' will never believe anything other than their own myopic mania on the matter. Normal people will continue to look on them with the same disgusted pity reserved for JFK, Apollo Moon Hoax and Big Foot CTists. They'll keep arguing alright; but they're consequence shrivels like hemorrhoids before Preparation "H"©.
 
I'm sure there's not more than one or two here that gives a rat's "puteau" what Gage thinks about CIT. Morons arguing with morons are quite amusing!

It appears that you're using two hands in that circle jerk, CE.

 
Childlike Empress said:
You wish.
Click to expand...


So CE, do you still maintain Morin is a NoC witness?

MiddletonvMorin.jpg


Could you please tell us how the guys at the cemetery could have judged the distance of the the plane from their position?

Clearoverthecitgo.jpg


How Turcious could have seen the planes approach at all through the canopy and convenience store and then run out to the berm is less than 3 seconds?


Turciousundercanopy.jpg



Answer these questions or stop wasting our time.
 
nicepants said:
I'm curious, CE, what you make of Brooks' claim that he saw a United (not AA) jet. He additionally describes a new United logo which wasn't on any of their jets in september, 2001).
Click to expand...

Bump for CE. I'd really like to know your thoughts on this subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom