8 out of 8 at Citgo station

[sheeplesnshills]

"Corroboration of a SoC flight path remains 0%."

LOL only in twoofer world. Lloyde England and Mr Morin corroborate it, Paiks testimony and a little math Corroborate it, Ms Zakhem corroborates it, Anyione who saw the plane hit (all CITs witnesses!) corroborate it because the damage requires a SoC flightpath (which is why CIt pretend it flew over), Penny Elgas and Deb Anlauf, Dawn Viginola and Dan Timmerman corroborate it, the physical damage corroborates it, the FDR corroborates it.

You are simply in denial.

 

[Childlike Empress]

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

Here's an interesting story from last week.

re: pic spamming, i'm not going to go round in circles with you. All dealt with in this thread.

 

[Miragememories]

Whats a CIT quality witness? One whose story can be misrepresented to fit CITs fantasy?
And why we prove anything? Its not us thats making ridiculous accusations. Thats CIT and their evidence fail to pass a credibility test. You have to look at Morins evidence to see they are wrong.

Faces are known to be difficult to remember, which is the usual case against witness reliability.

Two D.C. cops testifying to where they observed a high speed low-flying commercial airliner is not something easily dismissed.

MM

 

[The Big Dog]

Here's an interesting story from last week.

re: pic spamming, i'm not going to go round in circles with you. All dealt with in this thread.

Accusing people of being socks in a thread is a serious violation of the rules, CE.

I suggest you pull yourself together, work on getting that raw video released, and put your baseless accusations where they belong: in the garbage.

 

[The Big Dog]

Faces are known to be difficult to remember, which is the usual case against witness reliability.

Two D.C. cops testifying to where they observed a high speed low-flying commercial airliner is not something easily dismissed.

MM

Then you would no doubt also agree that their statements that the plane hit the Pentagon also "cannot be something that is easily dismissed."

And that is why CIT are the most incompetent truthers out there today.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Childlike Empress;6916740]Here's an interesting story from last week.

From that site.......

It was not clear exactly what the Air Force was doing with this software, or even if it had been procured.

I can think of legitimate reasons for using such software, can you?

re: pic spamming, i'm not going to go round in circles with you. All dealt with in this thread.

Liar. You have not answered any of those questions on this thread. The pictures make it quite clear why you are wrong. Explain how Mr Morin can see through a building............and how Turcious could have seen through the canopy or run to the Berm...........and how the cemetery workers could have judged how far the planes were away from them...........we'll wait

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Faces are known to be difficult to remember, which is the usual case against witness reliability.

Two D.C. cops testifying to where they observed a high speed low-flying commercial airliner is not something easily dismissed.

MM

Not at all when the route the plane went was of no significance at the time and the event of such a magnitude to render it one of the least likely things to be remembered accurately years later. Chad had only to be a few car park spaces to the south to explain his mistake or that he made the natural error that he assumed that the plane was above its shadow not well to its south.
he only saw it for about two seconds..................and he says it hit.....now thats something that it would be hard to be confused about!

 

[twinstead]

Have we been given any witnesses who claim they saw the plane veer up and fly over the Pentagon yet?

 

[BCR]

Have we been given any witnesses who claim they saw the plane veer up and fly over the Pentagon yet?

No, but just because none of the hundreds (if not thousands) of people who were there did not see it fly over, does not mean it did not.

 

[twinstead]

No, but just because none of the hundreds (if not thousands) of people who were there did not see it fly over, does not mean it did not.

Indeed

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Have we been given any witnesses who claim they saw the plane veer up and fly over the Pentagon yet?

Well Turcious said he saw it "lift up a little bit:

Apart from the fact he was not where he said he was and could not possibly have seen what he says he saw, even if he had been, he absolutely supports it "lifting up a little bit"!

 

[sheeplesnshills]

No, but just because none of the hundreds (if not thousands) of people who were there did not see it fly over, does not mean it did not.

maybe it disapparated? If Harry Potter can do it why not a 757!

 

[grandmastershek]

Then you would no doubt also agree that their statements that the plane hit the Pentagon also "cannot be something that is easily dismissed."

You sorely underestimate him sir.

 

[twinstead]

You sorely underestimate him sir.

Yup. For a truther, anything that is contrary to their beliefs "is something that can easily be dismissed".

 

[The Big Dog]

You sorely underestimate him sir.

lulz.

No I figured the CITIOTS out a LONG time ago.

CIT: Our super corroborated fancy video shows that the plane must have been NORTH OF CITGO, which means inside jobby job. Our eyewitnesses are infallible, corroborated, infallibly corroborated and corroborated infallibly!!!
Reasonable Person: They ALL say the plane hit the Pentagon
CIT: Oh, they were wrong about THAT.....
RP: FACEPALM. Well can you at least release the raw video.
CIT: YES!
RP: Oh, great. When?
CIT: Oh, when we said Yes, we meant that we were NOT going to release it.
Aldo: Oh nom nom nom....

 

[BCR]

maybe it disapparated? If Harry Potter can do it why not a 757!

I have it on good authority that the NWO used a Romulan cloaking device. Or at least that is what my NWO handler told me

 

[jaydeehess]

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 aircraft as flying over the Pentagon , or do you not deny this?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.

Granted I asked you IF I was not 'for real' what would I be.
OTOH you say that you have no reason to believe that I am not and yet you persist in not answering the other, on topic, question I put forth, which is bolded above

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.

Thus I ask the bolded question above and wonder how a decent person wishing not to adhere to any confirmation bias by others involved, can notice that the conclusions reached by the CiT are simply not backed by preponderance of evidence as to what took place at the Pentagon on Sept 11, 2001.

Please answer the above bolded question.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Please answer the above bolded question.

Of course I don't deny it. Do you think this is news to me? I'm not Richard Gage.

 

[jaydeehess]

Well Turcious said he saw it "lift up a little bit:

Apart from the fact he was not where he said he was and could not possibly have seen what he says he saw, even if he had been, he absolutely supports it "lifting up a little bit"!

Turcois is an interesting witness in Pentacon. Not only has it been shown in the video from the station that he was not where he told craig he was, Craig also manipulates what Turcois actually says. Its been a while but IIRC Turcois first points up and south at the canopy of the Citgo when asked where the plane went over. Craig then asks if that was the wing of the fuselage of the plane and Turcois then agrees that was the wing, where was the fuselage Craig asks, was it over the edge of the canopy, or was it over the tree to the side of the lot. So first we are to believe that when Turcoius first pointed he was inexplicably pointing to where the right wing was, then agrees that the fuselage was over that tree. Turcois' statements are known to be bogus due to the docuementary evidence of the Citgo videos but the most interesting part of the interview is the blatant leading that Craig does. It is obvious from the start what Craig wants Turcois to say and far from being an objective interviewer.

 

[jaydeehess]

Of course I don't deny it. Do you think this is news to me? I'm not Richard Gage.

Then how can you promote that a few witnesses with divergent views on where the plane approached, is more accurate than other witnesses with less divergent opinions on the approach path , and more accurate than all of the witness statement in which they say that the plane actually impacted the large and very obvious reference point?

How can you accept the contention of a flyover when there is absolutly no eyewitness statements that say this?

That is if not by adhereing to a solid confirmation bias?