8 out of 8 at Citgo station

[Childlike Empress]

Not ironic at all, because anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of how magic tricks are performed could tell you that CIT's "magic trick" would never work as described.

Apparently you don't have that knowledge, otherwise you wouldn't talk in subjunctive, right? "That" is not enough. And even if you did, you would have to come up with a better explanation for the eyewitness testimonies which are the topic of this thread.

 

[Baylor]

I wanted to report my success to "Citizen Investigation Team" but the "report" part of its website is still "under construction" and has been for two years. How seriously do Waldo and Craig take this **** if they can't even get their website functional in under 730 days?

This area is "under construction", but it will eventually be a place for you to report the outcome of your Operation Accountability efforts. For now please contact us via e-mail with any information. Thank you.​

 

[Childlike Empress]

[...] the single convergent item in the testimony of witnesses : that the plane impacted the Pentagon and that those who mention where it hit all have it hit low on the structure. :::?

btw, the second part of your italic sentence is again patently false and shows lack of knowledge or dishonesty. This is now my 362nd post in this thread and as I said on the last page: If anybody is interested in my opinion and/or the topic itself, read it. Thanks and bye until news arrives.

 

[Baylor]

More information about the juggernaut website that has taken the world by storm.

"Citizeninvestigationteam.com has a three-month global Alexa traffic rank of 2,285,198. Visitors to the site view an average of 1.8 unique pages per day. The site has a bounce rate of roughly 63% (i.e., 63% of visits consist of only one pageview). Visitors to the site spend approximately 81 seconds on each pageview and a total of three minutes on the site during each visit. Search engines refer about 17% of visits to Citizeninvestigationteam.com."​

 

[Baylor]

My favorite part of their website is the "strategy" section. Such a charasmatic figure, that Craig Ranke.

Stage 4: If you still haven’t received a response by your declared deadline, send them a final letter telling them that you are deeply disappointed that they have failed to respond appropriately and informing them that their failure to respond has been documented and will be published. The same can apply even if you have received a response and they simply refuse to act on the information. Such a failure to act on the part of politicians and authority figures is particularly problematic for them since their inaction to the information is tantamount to the crimes of obstruction of justice, misprision of treason, and misprision of a felony. Since this is the final letter, remind them of this with one final request for a response.​

What a jackass.

 

[The Big Dog]

Apparently you don't have that knowledge, otherwise you wouldn't talk in subjunctive, right? "That" is not enough. And even if you did, you would have to come up with a better explanation for the eyewitness testimonies which are the topic of this thread.

I came up with an "explanation" for your heroes' little videos a long time ago:

your heroes are grossly misrepresenting the witnesses' story.

They were busted by the Paik lie, and the mutts refuse to release the raw video.

Not that it matters anymore, except for your incessant spamming of the D-Bags last video, nobody gives a ****.

Thanks and bye until "news arrives"? Hilarious! Well, BYE forever spammer.

Let us know when the Buffet Slayer releases the raw vids, until then BYE!

 

[jaydeehess]

btw, the second part of your italic sentence is again patently false and shows lack of knowledge or dishonesty. This is now my 362nd post in this thread and as I said on the last page: If anybody is interested in my opinion and/or the topic itself, read it. Thanks and bye until news arrives.

Really? nah, I am not interested in "opinion" CE I am interested in exactly what I say I am interested in.

Did anyone say that the aircraft hit or was about to hit an upper storey of the structure or did all who mention where it hit say it hit low down or actually contacted the ground at the base of the building?http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7145964&postcount=1906

Did anyone other than the discredited Turcois say that the plane was rising as it approached the Pentagon? Certainly was'nt the person with the best view of what occured at the Pentagon, Boger.

Hey,,, if I am wrong then by all means correct me.. Of course by that I mean give evidence that I am wrong rather than simply posting "You're wrong jaydeehess!".

 

[jaydeehess]

The answer is in the first few minutes of NSA and, as I told you before, prominent throughout the presentation. They don't dismiss or discount it, and they certainly don't ignore it. They say it was a deception. A "magic" trick. It's really ironic that this concept seems so difficult to understand on the James Randi Educational Foundation Forum, of all places.

BINGO!!!!

The CiT takes the single most convergent point made by eyewitnesses and says,,,,, "they were all fooled". Yes, a 'magic trick' is the path by which the CiT choose to discount and dismiss the testimony of eyewitnesses.

Odd since the CiT also claim that eyewitness testimony is tantamount to smoking gun evidence when they claim a path other than that shown by the physical eveidence .... oh never mind that several of their "NoC" witnesses can be shown to actually be describing a path that would take the plane "SoC" and that others describe a path(Middleton) that would put the aircraft on a path that other witnesses simply could not have seen at all, never mind that they so utterly twist and manipulate Paik's testimony(he could not see the Annex, he points south, he was actually inside his shop when he saw the plane)
)

Not only were they fooled into thinking the plane hit the Pentagon they were alsoi somehow fooled into believeing that it hit low down on the structure when indeed it was 70+ feet above the building.

Oh, and not only did they fool the people who watched the plane they also managed to not have anyone anywhere else witness the supposed flyover. Shades of Start Wars,,, "this is not the plane you are looking at",,, or perhaps this was designed by the Bene Gesserit, sand worms anyone? Then again Herbert writes better fiction than the CiT.

,,, and of course all the witnesses in Manhattan were also fooled into thinking planes hit the towers.. At least according to no-planers which puts the CiT in the same genre as the Manhattan no-planers.




Yes indeedy the CiT places eyewitness testimony , when its at its most divergent, as having prime importance, but completely dismisses it when its at its most convergent.
Explains why when I type define: "confirmation bias" into Bing it returns a link to the CiT website (kidding of course

 

[ihaunter]

BINGO!!!!

The CiT takes the single most convergent point made by eyewitnesses and says,,,,, "they were all fooled". Yes, a 'magic trick' is the path by which the CiT choose to discount and dismiss the testimony of eyewitnesses.

Odd since the CiT also claim that eyewitness testimony is tantamount to smoking gun evidence when they claim a path other than that shown by the physical eveidence .... oh never mind that several of their "NoC" witnesses can be shown to actually be describing a path that would take the plane "SoC" and that others describe a path(Middleton) that would put the aircraft on a path that other witnesses simply could not have seen at all, never mind that they so utterly twist and manipulate Paik's testimony(he could not see the Annex, he points south, he was actually inside his shop when he saw the plane)
)

Not only were they fooled into thinking the plane hit the Pentagon they were alsoi somehow fooled into believeing that it hit low down on the structure when indeed it was 70+ feet above the building.

Oh, and not only did they fool the people who watched the plane they also managed to not have anyone anywhere else witness the supposed flyover. Shades of Start Wars,,, "this is not the plane you are looking at",,, or perhaps this was designed by the Bene Gesserit, sand worms anyone? Then again Herbert writes better fiction than the CiT.

,,, and of course all the witnesses in Manhattan were also fooled into thinking planes hit the towers.. At least according to no-planers which puts the CiT in the same genre as the Manhattan no-planers.




Yes indeedy the CiT places eyewitness testimony , when its at its most divergent, as having prime importance, but completely dismisses it when its at its most convergent.
Explains why when I type define: "confirmation bias" into Bing it returns a link to the CiT website (kidding of course

Excellent post. The narrow viewing angle is probably the most devastating aspect of this as a "magic trick." There are other issues, but, the whole "magic trick" line really is just an excuse to further cherry-pick the claims of their already cherry-picked witnesses, isn't it? It falls apart before we even need to get to the technical stuff. Their eyewitnesses are infallible, except when they were fooled.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I came up with an "explanation" for your heroes' little videos a long time ago:

your heroes are grossly misrepresenting the witnesses' story.

Countless people, have mentioned that, myself included with numerous others... If their panhandling of this fly-over lie is genuine, that makes them utterly, stupendously, oblivious and fraught with double standards with respect to their treatment of eye witness testimony. Anything else makes them pretty much full blown frauds, and liars who've done nothing but slander people. :\

 

[Childlike Empress]

the single convergent item in the testimony of witnesses : that the plane impacted the Pentagon and that those who mention where it hit all have it hit low on the structure. :::?

the second part of your italic sentence is again patently false

Did anyone other than the discredited Turcois say that the plane was rising as it approached the Pentagon?

Readers, notice how the discredited jaydeehess goes from "everybody says it hit low" to "does anybody but that guy say it was rising" in the blink of an eye without giving a single example for his former claim. Truely bizarre.

 

[BCR]

Readers, notice how the discredited jaydeehess goes from "everybody says it hit low" to "does anybody but that guy say it was rising" in the blink of an eye without giving a single example for his former claim. Truely bizarre.

Oh, you mean the discredited witness who lied and said he ran towards and up the embankment but instead turned and ran inside the station?

 

[jaydeehess]

. Their eyewitnesses are infallible, except when they were fooled.

That boils it down pretty well. The rest is detail such as the 'infallible' part of testimony puts the aircraft all over the map.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Oh, you mean the discredited witness who lied and said he ran towards and up the embankment but instead turned and ran inside the station?

No, my statement was about jaydeehess, not about the man who gave an unmistakenly clear account of what he saw and was smeared for it by the likes of achimspok and you.

 

[twinstead]

Witnesses schmitnesses. What a silly debate. That's why real investigators look at the entire body of evidence, both physical and eye witness, to come up with a conclusion about what happened.

This all points to pretty much what everybody else already knows. There's a reason why it's called the commonly-held narrative.

 

[jaydeehess]

Readers, notice how the discredited jaydeehess goes from "everybody says it hit low" to "does anybody but that guy say it was rising" in the blink of an eye without giving a single example for his former claim. Truely bizarre.

They might also notice that you have completely misrepresented what I did say. Not to mention that I have said it many times in several threads.

I have stated that everyone who makes a statement about where it hit says it hit low down on the building or even that it hit the ground at the base of the structure, a structure that is 70+ feet tall and which you would have us believe the aircraft was flying over.

I then asked if there was anyone but the discredited Turcois who says that the plane was rising. At least this might give some small credence to your claim that the plane went over the Pentagon but no,, there is no one other than Turcois who is seen on video running in the opposite direction and could not have seen what he said he saw from where he said he was.
I have also mentioned that Turcois actually described a plane that went down below his line of sight past the embankment AFTER it supposedly rose up slightly to go over the bank, and that he never saw the plane again, just the fireball. SO EVEN IF Turcois was not the person seen running towards the station he still describes an aircraft that went DOWN as it passed the highway, and although he was still watching he NEVER saw the plane again.It would be extremly foolish to fly a plane through a fireball, especially one containing bits and pieces of a concrete structure and if it had risen up and over prior to the fireball Turcois would have to have stopped to tie his shoes to have missed this.

Morin, ran out into the parking area of the Annex and says he SAW the aircraft go down until all he could see was the vertical stabilizer over the trees (the only trees he could see from this point are all SOUTH of the CITGO station) and he watched and then saw the fireball bloom. He did NOT see the aircraft rise up again. It would be extremly foolish to fly a plane through a fireball, especially one containing bits and pieces of a concrete structure and if it had risen up and over prior to the fireball Morin would have to have stopped to tie his shoes to have missed this.

Then there is Boger who had the absolute best viewing angle for what occured to his left and only several dozen feet away. He watched the plane approach accross the lawn and did he see the plane, increasingly in profile as it comes accross the grass, rising? No, instead he says he watched it IMPACT the Pentagon and heard it continuing into the structure. The CiT then simply dismiss Boger's testimony of impact by telling us he must have lied aout it.

Middleton also IIRC says he saw the plane hit the Pentagon, though his description of the path it took to the Pentagon cannot be correct as it would preclude Morin and Paik and others from having seen the plane at all.


IN FACT everyone who was in position to see it says that the plane impacted the Pentagon AND the few who describe where it hit say it hit low down. (sorry I do not recall the names of those who describe low down or ground hits but I am sure CE knows that this did occur. After all he has been following the Pentagon story so very closely for the last several years) There are NO witnesses who say it hit or that they thought it would hit, an upper storey. There are NO witnesses who say the plane was doing anything other than descending or flying level and low. I also cannot give examples of the NO witnesses who say that it was going to hit high up.

This is not David Copperfield 'magic' then. No, this is Merlin 'magic'.


I have also said in the past that the CiT would be better served to claim that he plane was utilising ET technology and that the plane actually flew at the Pentagon then instituted a dimensional shift that had it continue through the molecular structure of the Pentagon, the crust of the Earth and only returned to this plane of existance once it reached the Bermuda triangle. The CiT could have called it "The Event" and sold the story to NBC.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, my statement was about jaydeehess, not about the man who gave an unmistakenly clear account of what he saw and was smeared for it by the likes of achimspok and you.

HAHAHA!!!!

CIT's latest bestest buddy accusing someone else of attacking a witness who gave a an unmistakenly clear account of what he saw and was smeared for it?

Bwhahaha!

Hey CE, Lloyde England called, he said to leave you message that you are an incredible hypocrite, particularly for standing up for two of the of the worst frauds in America.

Hey CE, see the raw tapes yet, champ?

Oh right, you don't give a ****.

Good for you, hypocrite.

 

[jaydeehess]

CIT's latest bestest buddy accusing someone else of attacking a witness who gave a an unmistakenly clear account of what he saw and was smeared for it?


Hey CE, Lloyde England called, he said to leave you message that you are an incredible hypocrite, particularly for standing up for two of the of the worst frauds in America.


Good for you, hypocrite.

I too was struck by CE getting weepy about the discrediting of Turcois considering the absolute slander and manipulation the CiT have engaged in concerning Mr. England.

While the CiT slander Lloyd based on their personal incredulity that a lamp post could cause the damage to his car as seen and pick apart his statements all the while pretending to befriend him, it is objective and impersonal video evidence by which we discredit Turcois's storey.

 

[jaydeehess]

Originally posted in "Continuation,,," thread

I thought it better fit here

The CIA trained terrorists to hijack aircraft but they did not have these people actually fly aircraft into buildings (at least not the Pentagon), is that your senario CE?

They were building the legend for you to believe in. Scenario.

Thank you for the spelling lesson, CE. Duly noted as it was a while ago when I was corrected in my spelling of 'acceleration', which I had been doubling the 'l' rather than the 'c'.

Now perhaps you will flesh out this scenario for us.

The CIA trained terrorists to fly planes. One can certainly assume said terrorists were expecting that this skill was to be utilised when they took command of an airliner after it had been hijacked rather than simply a carreer change.

So the CIA was preparing said terrorists for a hijacking attempt and by all indications, on Sept 11/01 these hijackings actually occured,

the CIA trained terrorists now at the controls, the supposed real conspirators then orchestrated a hugh and complicated plan to substitute a different plane for the hijacked AA Flt 77,

the real flight 77 was then spirited away somewhere else and the patsy hijackers and all on board 'disposed' of by some unknown means, its flightpath to this secret disposal not witnessed by anyone on the ground or watching radar screens,

and fake Flt 77 impact with the Pentagon by flying the substitute at the Pentagon then up and over

while pulling off a 'magic trick' that has all witnesses of the fake plane believe that it hit the Pentagon and that had any possible witness anywhere else not see the aircraft pulling up and over a 70 foot tall building.

The 'faked' impact then also saw aircraft parts and bodies planted throughout the Pentagon destruction, some still in their seats,

'faked' clipped lamp standards were planted or caused to topple but as part of the 'magic trick' no one actually saw the posts being planted or toppling for no apparent reason,

the damage to the structure saw 100 feet (the approx width of the wingspan of a 757) of the ground floor wall destroyed and not have this debris deposited outward from the structure,

a nice detail was arranged when the gen-set parked nearby was damaged and saw it move towards the Pentagon to fake its having been clipped by something travelling towards the building,

the damage to the second floor wall was created closely matching an outline of the fuselage of a 757.

That pretty much it CE. Any details you'd like to add? Corrections?

Now its probably just me but it would seem much less complicated to train these terrorists to command a hijacked plane and send it on a suicide mission to attack the Pentagon and just let the chips fall where they may.

Obviously these conspiracists could not care less about collatteral damage in either installation or personell and the patsy hijackers on the aircraft would die, the country would mourn those killed in the a/c and in the building, the country would see this as an attack on its military power and blame the pasty hijackers.
Even if the hijacker/pilot completely misses the Pentagon its still an attack on the USA and the actual target would still obviously have been something in the Virginia/D.C. area (Pentagon/Whitehouse/Capital/CIA, etc.)
,,, and if the hijacker pilot takes out Pentagon Chiefs or Rummy himself, well they just become martyrs to the cause of getting the USA more militarily into the middle east.



Which is a good segway into the make up of the patsy hijackers. Saudis by and large. Now the whole conspiracy supposed was to give the USA an excuse to go into the Middle east, specifically , Iraq. Yet there were no Iraqis among the hijackers, nor any Afghanis. Al-Qada was blamed, we were told they were led by OBL who was in Afghanistan, yet the suposed conspirators thought it not relevent to bolster these great lies by claiming or planting a few Afghanis or Iraqis as hijackers..... must be a detail they missed.
Instead they 'chose' mostly Saudis, citizens of a country relatively friendly towards the USA and the west. The guy planning this part must have thought all Arabs are the same.

 

[Childlike Empress]

You'll have the last word again, jaydeehess. Your rants filled with misinformation - those on- and those offtopic - don't impress me in the slightest. You have massively shot yourself in your own foot. I recommended self-reflection earlier but doubt that this will happen. So have at it.