8 out of 8 at Citgo station

[Childlike Empress]

btw jaydeehess, your bolded question proves that if you watched NSA, you didn't understand what was presented to you.

 

[jaydeehess]

btw jaydeehess, your bolded question proves that if you watched NSA, you didn't understand what was presented to you.

I know that what was presented ignored the fact that all of these witnesses say that the plane hit the Pentagon. I understand that the CiT contend that everyone was fooled into not noticing that the plane flew over the Pentagon.
I understand that on one hand the CiT promote eyewitness accounts as solid evidence and yet on the other hand discount eyewitness accounts at the point where all of them agree on a single point, that the aircraft hit the building.

I understand that the CiT have made a contention of a flyover without any single shred of evidence that this actually occured which makes it nothing more than a fiction of their own construction.

that you adhere to this fictitious construction illustrates that you suffer the same bias that the CiT do.(not that that was in doubt)

 

[The Big Dog]

btw jaydeehess, your bolded question proves that if you watched NSA, you didn't understand what was presented to you.

Hey, here's an idea! Because CIT's work is so earth shattering, why don't we all review the raw video without Craig and his Disco shirt yammering away?

You GOTTA be for that, amirite?

 

[jaydeehess]

Since it is blatantly obvious that he CiT are incorrect in their contention that the aircarft flew over the Pentagon then it brings into question all other details they have concluded.

The fact that could lump Middleton's 'north of the Annex' path in with Morin's 'south of the Annex' paths and call both of them NoC is another stretch of logic. In fact trying to make Morin a NoC witness at all truly is a stretch since he could not have seen an aircraft that passed NoC in the manner he describes.

Paik could not see the Annex from where he was on that day nor could he see it from the location where the CiT interviewed him and yet the CiT take his diagram of a path over the Annex as gospel and ignore his actually pointing to the south when asked where the plane was and ignoring his account that he wondered if the plane had hit the tower to the south of Columbia Pike.

Boger says the plane came in over the Annex and IIRC over the Citgo. However it is not a given that he could actually see the Citgo or if he inferred its location. However he most certainly could see the Pentagon only a few dozen feet behind him and he states emphatically that he plane hit the building. The CiT dismiss this by accusing him of lieing and say that he must have been ducked behind the console at that time.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

btw jaydeehess, your bolded question proves that if you watched NSA, you didn't understand what was presented to you.

I've seen it (actually have it downloaded) Whats not to understand???? All the witnesses say it hit, none say it was too high to have hit, none say it flew away (Well Roosevelt Roberts did but his timing makes no sense and it likely was the C130 he saw)

Oh and we forgot Maria, how could she possibly have missed a flyover?

How do you think Dawn and Dan could have missed a flyover?

 

[twinstead]

You GOTTA be for that, amirite?

Wow, that's pretty harsh calling CE an ancient Semitic-speaking person who occupied large parts of Mesopotamia. Oh wait. That's Amorite.

Never mind.

 

[jaydeehess]

A look at all the raw interview video would certainly put to rest all the arguement that the CiT did or did not lead witnesses or that they parsed witness interviews for their own bias.

It is odd then that the CiT hang their supporters out to dry in trying to defend not posting this material.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

that you adhere to this fictitious construction illustrates that you suffer the same bias that the CiT do.(not that that was in doubt)

I think CE is just another Balsammo/rank/aldo sock puppet. No one unless they were making money out of this racket would take "her" position of dogged blind ignorance.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Wow, that's pretty harsh calling CE an ancient Semitic-speaking person who occupied large parts of Mesopotamia. Oh wait. That's Amorite.

Never mind.

I think CE may be an Ammonite!

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

 

[twinstead]

I think CE may be an Ammonite!

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

Now that's harsh.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Thought this might be interesting to read since I've been reading these things for a few weeks now:

Link 1

Memories don't just fade, as the old saying would have us believe; they also grow. What fades is the initial perception, the actual experience of the events. But every time we recall an event, we must reconstruct the memory, and with each recollection the memory may be changed--colored by succeeding events, other people's recollections or suggestions, increased understanding, or a new context.
Truth and reality, when seen through the filter of our memories, are not objective facts but subjective, interpretive realities. We interpret the past, correcting ourselves, adding bits and pieces, deleting uncomplimentary or disturbing recollections, sweeping, dusting, tidying things up. Thus our representation of the past takes on a living, shifting reality; it is not fixed and immutable, not a place way back there that is preserved in stone, but a living thing that changes shape, expands, shrinks, and expands again, an amoebalike creature with powers to make us laugh, and cry, and clench our fists. Enormous powers--powers even to make us believe in something that never happened.
Are we aware of our mind's distortions of our past experiences? In most cases, the answer is no. As time goes by and the memories gradually change, we become convinced that we saw or said or did what we remember. We perceive the blending of fact and fiction that constitutes a memory as completely and utterly truthful. We are innocent victims of our mind's manipulations.

But precise memory suddenly becomes crucial in the event of a crime or an accident. Small details assume enormous importance. Did the assailant have a mustache, or was he clean-shaven? Was he five eight or five eleven? Was the traffic light red, or was it green? How fast was the Cadillac going when it went through the red light--or was it yellow?--and smashed into the Volkswagen? Did the car cross the center line, or did it stay on its own side? Civil and criminal cases often rest on such subtle, seemingly trivial details, and these details are often hard to obtain.

In July 1977 Flying magazine reported the fatal crash of a small plane that killed all eight people aboard and one person who was on the ground. Sixty eyewitnesses were interviewed, and two eyewitnesses who had actually seen the airplane just before the impact testified at a hearing to investigate the accident. The plane, one of the eyewitnesses explained, "was heading right toward the ground--straight down." This witness apparently did not know that several photographs clearly showed that the airplane hit flat and at a low-enough angle to skid for almost one thousand feet.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Thought this might be interesting to read since I've been reading these things for a few weeks now:

Link 1

And the above is why, even if CIT was right ,what they present would never be accepted as evidence over the physical evidence.

 

[Pinch]

Chad? can you remember exactly where you parked six years earlier?
[qimg]http://i643.photobucket.com/albums/uu158/thesmith1_photos/copsversusflightline.jpg[/qimg]

I haven't talked or mentioned this over the years because I could not use her name or provide any corroborating data, but an old high school classmate of mine who ended up marrying a co-worker of mine here in the Crystal City/DC area, was parking her car (She worked for the Missile Defense Agency in the Pentagon) right around where that big red box is - which is pretty close to where Officer Brooks claims he was. She told me afterward that the AA77 flew directly over her head.

Even if I hadn't served in the Pentagon in the Navy unit that lost so many members and even if I hadn't been a naval flight officer for my 10 years of active duty and 15 years or reserve duty and even if I wasn't a mile and a quarter away when AA77 slammed into the building and I drove past the crash site 15 minutes after it happened - personally knowing someone with an unimpeachable character who saw exactly what happened is good for me to tell Ranke and Alpo to go play in the street like the small minded little children they are. The fact that she has had no interest in getting mixed up in the fetid, festering boil of CIT or P4T makes it even that much more powerful.

 

[Childlike Empress]

I know that what was presented ignored the fact that all of these witnesses say that the plane hit the Pentagon.

No, it didn't. It's prominent in the presentation.

This is my 357th post in this thread. If anyone is honestly interested in my opinions on the various details, read it. I'm not going to repeat myself.

Dawn Vignola is neighter a NoC nor SoC witness. Far too far away to judge. She is a plane witness who thinks it hit the building. Read mudlark's posts early in this thread for a dissection of the lists of alleged SoC witnesses circulated by the TruthSims and parroted by the DebunkSims.

Cya.

 

[BCR]

Read mudlark's posts early in this thread for a dissection of the lists of alleged SoC witnesses circulated by the TruthSims and parroted by the DebunkSims.

Cya.

Referencing Mudlark only serves to undermine your case more (if such a thing was possible). We all know the NWO invoked Romulan cloaking technology and that is why the are no fly-over witnesses.

 

[beachnut]

No, it didn't. It's prominent in the presentation.

This is my 357th post in this thread. If anyone is honestly interested in my opinions on the various details, read it. I'm not going to repeat myself.

Dawn Vignola is neighter a NoC nor SoC witness. Far too far away to judge. She is a plane witness who thinks it hit the building. Read mudlark's posts early in this thread for a dissection of the lists of alleged SoC witnesses circulated by the TruthSims and parroted by the DebunkSims.

Cya.

Wow, you have delusion of TruthSims and DebunkSims. Your ignorance on 911 is noted. Which part of RADAR do you fail to understand. I know science is not used by CIT, did they make you ignore RADAR? Are they paying you to remain ignorant on 911 issues?

Why are you fooled by lies made up by morons at CIT? Nothing simulated by CIT, they are full up and running morons on 911 issues, not moronSIMs, real plain delusional morons.

 

[BCR]

No need to cover it up any more Beachnut, we are busted! Those super-slueths at P4T have solid evidence that the plane that hit the Pentagon departed gate D19 at IAD. As you know, 77 deaparted gate D26 and flew on to Area 51 and was picked up on radar as it crossed over from Indy to Kansas. The FDR is from the plane we supped up with the Romulan cloaking technology.

I'm not sure why we did the crazy NoC thingy, but that turns out to be our down-fall. We should have known those pesky kids out in California would figure it all out

Gotta run, some men in black are wanting to talk to me.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

No, it didn't. It's prominent in the presentation.

This is my 357th post in this thread. If anyone is honestly interested in my opinions on the various details, read it. I'm not going to repeat myself.

Dawn Vignola is neighter a NoC nor SoC witness. Far too far away to judge. She is a plane witness who thinks it hit the building. Read mudlark's posts early in this thread for a dissection of the lists of alleged SoC witnesses circulated by the TruthSims and parroted by the DebunkSims.

Cya.

If the Plane hits, it makes her a SoC witness as there was no NoC damage. She and her boyfriend were in an excellent place to see a flyover but did not.
They see a plane, they see it hit they do not see it flyover so the plane must have been SoC.
CIT even took that picture of their view of the Pentagon!

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Wow, you have delusion of TruthSims and DebunkSims. Your ignorance on 911 is noted. Which part of RADAR do you fail to understand. I know science is not used by CIT, did they make you ignore RADAR? Are they paying you to remain ignorant on 911 issues?

Why are you fooled by lies made up by morons at CIT? Nothing simulated by CIT, they are full up and running morons on 911 issues, not moronSIMs, real plain delusional morons.

CE is one of the morons at CIT......there is no other credible excuse for "her" behavior.

 

[GlennB]

Bump for Childlike Empress

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.