8 out of 8 at Citgo station

[sheeplesnshills]

=Childlike Empress;6914785]Well, then the explanation is confirmation bias.

If we were generous we could indeed say CIT are guilty of confirmation bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
I however think it more likely they are simply greedy liars. This would better explain their (and your) reaction when the glaring errors in their fantasy are pointed out.

A shill.

Could you please show your evidence that anyone, at any time, has ever been paid to debunk your or any other truthers woo..............

I could equally claim that you are obviously a shill, paid to make the Truthers look like morons. (I do see the flaw in this argument though.....the Thruthers do such a good job of this themselves that paying anyone to do it would be superfluous.)

 

[Childlike Empress]

If you think their treatment is acceptable be my guest but it won't fly in the real world legal system. I already had this discussion with CE weeks ago.

No, you hadn't. I would remember your over hundred witnesses building a 90% corroboration of a SoC flight path, and you would be able to link to them.

Corroboration of a SoC flight path remains 0%.

 

[Childlike Empress]

I have to confess, I have not watched NSA

I just don't have the patience to watch the thing because of the commentary and silliness. Now if CE wants to link an eyewitness account, I'll be happy to watch those.

indeed. See below.

So you refuse to accept that anyone else believes this because you don't believe it yourself? Well, case closed, then; just make something up, and deny that anybody disagrees with you because nobody's convinced you that you're wrong. Standard delusional MO.

Dave

Believe is not involved here. It's a matter of knowledge about the parade of witnesses telling to the camera their experience of the plane approaching on a path that is incompatible with it causing the damage at the Pentagon.

This evidence exists despite all attempts to bury it in smoke and mirrors. My four options generally cover the possible explanations, poorly worded or not. Deception on CIT's side has yet to be proven, while I have proven deception on the DebunkSim/TruthSim side throughout this thread.

I'll use my BBcode fu to embed the video again, this time starting at the spot with the witness testimonies. As you should know and BCR certainly knows, NSA contains excerpts chosen for brevity. Extended testimonies are available in CIT's several other presentations they did over the years.

Starting ~16min into "National Security Alert", right with the testimonies:

 

[BCR]

Sorry CE, it is physically impossible for him to see what he described with anything but a SoC. But of course, you would not understand that.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

<snip> of a SoC flight path..<snip>

You're concerns about any kind of NoC or SoC flight path are irrelevant to me of course. As we discussed in early January, CIT's selection bias, and complete dismissal of all testimony and physical evidence without suitable cause is grounds for determining their legal case is dead. Since the ones who are investigating have demostrated extraordinary incompetence and irresponsibility, it's safe to conclude that any research they have built off of that fails to meet the credibility criteria.

Corroboration of a SoC flight path remains 0%.

Corroboration of a pentagon impact remains 100% (which includes both you 8 valuable witnesses + all 100+ people who were in the vicinity), plus physical evidence. As you know CE, physical evidence tells us where the plane traversed, and physical evidence does not lie, since it's not burdened by human imperfection, nor bias, so your point is pretty much a non-issue. You've shown an incapacity to prove that physical evidence has been planted, and for that matter any competence in how to mount a firm legal case in the first place, making your case all the worse.

 

[Childlike Empress]

You're concerns about any kind of NoC or SoC flight path are irrelevant to me of course.

Of course. If you want to discuss the broader picture you perceive, do it somewhere else. If you are able to focus on the topic of this thread, present a single one of your proclaimed over hundred of SoC witnesses.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Since the problem with your 8 witnesses lies in deplorably incompetent investigative work, I'd say discussing the problem at its source is well on track for this topic.

 

[Childlike Empress]

You should be aware since page one of this thread that we are not talking about eight witnesses at the CITGO. You have to bring more to the table than blank assertions of "incompetent investigative work" if you want any substantive response from me. We are far beyond this point. Frankly, everything is said. Progress will not be made in this little clubhouse of deniers.

Bored. See you next page.

 

[jaydeehess]

Well, then the explanation is confirmation bias.

Indeed that would be a good fit for what the CiT put forth by ignoring all evidence, including that which their own witnesses say about impact.

Well, do you deny that all witnesses in position to see it describe an impact with the Pentagon and none describe this aircarft as flying over the Pentagon , or do you not deny this?(if not how can you not, please explain)

A shill.

Really? I mean really, do you believe that it is highly possible that I am a paid shill for a gov't or extra-governmental organization? Really?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You have to bring more to the table than blank assertions of "incompetent investigative work" if you want any substantive response from me.

Er...you flat out ignore anything that refers to the faults in CIT's investigative practices in full.
Getting a substantive response from an individual who makes every conceivable effort to adamantly avoid content like the bubonic plague is an oxymoron...

You could start here if you ever get bored again: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162245&page=36

 

[Childlike Empress]

Really? I mean really, do you believe that it is highly possible that I am a paid shill for a gov't or extra-governmental organization? Really?

Uhm, no. If you weren't so trapped into your little conformation biased self perception of being a super rational 9/11 debunker up against foolish twoofers, you would have noticed that i stated that i have no reason to think that you are not for real. Several regulars in this thread, however, have proven to me and astute observers that they are, indeed, not for real. A major red flag is that they don't care about maintaining credibility.

Being associated with disinformation agents is of course something any remotely decent person would hate to be, reinforcing already existing confirmation bias, and the prospect of having been actively on the wrong side of history, unintentionally covering up for mass murder and high treason, as a useful idiot, is something one wouldn't tell ones descendents about. A terrible burden.

 

[beachnut]

.. says that flight 77 had a different flight path ? Whats the source on this one.. can not find it!

A different flight path is delusional, used to fool people. RADAR data proves CIT are liars, they made up lies based on fantasy, and ignorance. What makes people be incredibly stupid to believe the CIT lies after they examine the RADAR data, DNA evidence, and research the FDR. Maybe the few fringe paranoid conspiracy theorists who continue to support CIT are too lazy to investigate 911 on their own, too lazy to think for themselves.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Believe is not involved here. It's a matter of knowledge about the parade of witnesses telling to the camera their experience of the plane approaching on a path that is incompatible with it causing the damage at the Pentagon.

This evidence exists despite all attempts to bury it in smoke and mirrors. My four options generally cover the possible explanations, poorly worded or not.

No, they don't, because a fifth explanation has been repeatedly stated here. Your claim that it hasn't been proven is irrelevant; the very fact that you're suggesting four valid options indicates that none of those has been proven either.

Your four options were:
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.

Option (1) is the closest to reality, but it's still not an accurate description of the consensus because even the NoC flight paths don't agree with one another; they are quite literally all over the map. The consensus is that all the witnesses honestly and accurately described their recollections of what they witnessed, that these recollections vary due to the imperfect nature of memory, and that CIT has carefully selected a subset of these random variations and ignored all others. It's a classic example of confirmation bias and special pleading; any excuse to ignore SoC testimony is siezed upon, as is any excuse to misrepresent SoC testimony as NoC, yet no similar critical examination of NoC testimony is even attempted despite the fact that in at least one case the NoC flight path is physically impossible for the witness to have seen.

So the response I think we agree on, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, is:
5) Their accounts vary due to imperfect recollection, and CIT have cherry-picked and misrepresented accounts in order to give the false impression that all witnesses agree on a NoC approach.

Now, please feel free to go on pretending that nobody actually believes this, and rationalise it however you like. Just be aware that we all know you're denying the reality of this specific issue, which makes it all the more likely that you're in denial about a whole load of other things.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

You have to bring more to the table than blank assertions of "incompetent investigative work" if you want any substantive response from me.

It's not incompetent. It's biased and fraudulent. CIT deliberately set out to distort and misrepresent the witness accounts to give a false impression of the flight path. They're not fools, they're liars.

Dave

 

[BCR]

You should be aware since page one of this thread that we are not talking about eight witnesses at the CITGO. You have to bring more to the table than blank assertions of "incompetent investigative work" if you want any substantive response from me. We are far beyond this point. Frankly, everything is said. Progress will not be made in this little clubhouse of deniers.

Bored. See you next page.

Maybe because there were only two at the Citgo?

 

[twinstead]

It's not incompetent. It's biased and fraudulent. CIT deliberately set out to distort and misrepresent the witness accounts to give a false impression of the flight path. They're not fools, they're liars.

Yup. The only fools are those who believe them.

 

[GlennB]

Corroboration of a SoC flight path remains 0%.

Let me, once again, put a point to you. One you have studiously avoided so far afaics -

If Paik and Morin are to be included as CIT witnesses then any flightpath which includes some approximation of their testimony and goes NoC and on towards the impact area must, by all laws of flight, include a severe bank. A bank in the region of 70°, minimum, as I recall.

Nobody saw this, or anything remotely resembling it. The NoC witnesses cannot have seen what the CIT analysis represents them as having seen.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Of course not. Never did. You pretend that he is a SoC witness, remember?

There are no SoC witnesses with nearly the same quality any of the NoC witnesses shown in NSA, like Terry Morin, have. Interviewed on stage, clarifying interviews done in 2001. None.

Mea culpa, cursed Typos. So you still maintain Mr Morin is a NoC witness.

How can he be? How could he have seen the plane through the navy annex? Has he Xray eyes?

Which NoC witnesses are you talling about?
The guys at the cemetery? Please tell us how they could possibly have know how far the plane was from them?

Turcious? How could he see through the canopy and the convenience store, never mind run to where he said he saw the plane "lift up a little bit"

Chad? can you remember exactly where you parked six years earlier?

Which of those are quality witnesses? can you also tell us why CIT discount Ms Zakhems testimony, or Dawn Vignola and Dan Timmermans?
http://i643.photobucket.com/albums/uu158/thesmith1_photos/vignolasightlines.jpg
Or Deb Anlaufs

Or Steve anderson?

or Penny Elgas?

Lloyde England?

Why do CIT lie so much?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Several regulars in this thread, however, have proven to me and astute observers that they are, indeed, not for real. A major red flag is that they don't care about maintaining credibility.

Really? You have proof? This we have to see

Being associated with disinformation agents is of course something any remotely decent person would hate to be, reinforcing already existing confirmation bias, and the prospect of having been actively on the wrong side of history, unintentionally covering up for mass murder and high treason, as a useful idiot, is something one wouldn't tell ones descendents about. A terrible burden.

you have not even shown that there are any "disinfo agents" or that you are not one yourself

 

[The Big Dog]

A shill.

LULZ!!

I am surprised your computer keyboard did not commit suicide just from the pure irony!

CE, CIT's latest poster person, slavish spammer of garbage and whose only retort is repeat like a coma victim:

Watch NSA, Link...

Calling someone else a shill. Hilarious.

Hey, CE, seen the Raw Tapes yet? No? Even CIT's biggest latest fan hasn't seen them, and doesn't care? Well, you are quite the effective witness aren't you?