8 out of 8 at Citgo station

[The Big Dog]

You'll have the last word again, jaydeehess. Your rants filled with misinformation - those on- and those offtopic - don't impress me 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.

Holy ******

You still at it CE?

I suggest you watch the first conspirator, or whatever the mutts called their unhinged defamation of Lloyde England.

Christ, you are SUCH a hypocrite.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Do you really still think that trying to bait me into nonsensical and uncivil exchanges with you works, 16.5? I gave beachnut a brief audience recently and it was promptly moved to AAH - including some topical posts of mine. I know your game.

 

[Justin39640]

I tried the magic trick about 100 times with a flight combat sim (LOMAC) using an A-10. Hitting the building, not a problem. Pulling up and over at the very last second, full throttle... not so much.

 

[beachnut]

Do you really still think that trying to bait me into nonsensical and uncivil exchanges with you works, 16.5? I gave beachnut a brief audience recently and it was promptly moved to AAH - including some topical posts of mine. I know your game.

In the USAF many of our older planes have no FDR, thus we have to use witnesses and study of structural damage to find the cause of the accident. At the Pentagon we have flight 77 FDR and RADAR tracks which prove exactly by degree how the impact of 77 happened, the exact orientation, angle etc. Flight 77 hit in a decent, we don't need eye witnesses. CIT take witnesses and has them draw flight paths which defy physics, and twist testimony moronically to come up with nonsense, they failed.

An investigator would never ask a witness to draw a flight path from a tangential position, they would take bearings from the witness and fit that to other witnesses using basic navigation techniques to nail down there the flight was. For 77 we have RADAR, and FDR, and the flight 77 in the Pentagon.

CIT are unable to form rational conclusions on 911, and ignore reality to come up with nonsense. When you have the FDR you don't ask someone how it flew, when you have impact damage you don't care where people think it hit, we know exactly where it hit; CIT fails without much effort.

 

[jaydeehess]

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.

Like I said,,,, bye then...

OTOH I also note that you never even bothered to answer any question I posed.
I asked specifically how the CiT manages to dismiss/ignore or discount the fact that the single point of convergence among eyewitnesses.
Your off the cuff remark,,, that it was an ochestrated 'magic trick'. No details.
You also told me that its all in "NSA", and I asked if there is any point that has not been covered in the pages of the JREF forums already.
No reply.

Perhaps you'd care to link to a post in which these deatils have been described, you know like how fast the decoy aircraft was moving when it began pulling up under full power and exactly how far out from the structure it was when this began, and when w.r.t. the pull-up the explosion occured, where the explosives were placed such that they destroy the first floor wall inward and cause the gen-set to move towards the Pentagon.

Instead of simply telling me I have to watch a 81 minute video. I do not care to download the video and certainly am not going to pay the CiT for a copy. Given that you and other CiT followers are so hot to post on JREF and have been doing so since Lyte Trip began posting about his 'blow the lid off' video about to come out ("Pentacon") I am quite sure you must have posted these details here where I can peruse them quickly and efficiently.......?????

I would have thought that if it were important that you would want to illuminate me. I would have thought that if it were important that you would bring up points not yet covered in these pages.

When I asked about the supposed CIA training of the hijacker pilots you offer up only that it was part of a legend to believe in.Then when I actually post a full scenario utilising such a detail as CIA training of hijacker-pilots and offer up the much simpler use of such , i.e. actually using them to fly planes into targets thus eliminating a huge amount of complicated planning which the CiT claims(with no evidence) occured,,, you again simply brush the query aside.

I asked another question in the "Continuation,,, " Thread; why is it that when asked questions that 911 conspiracists so oftem concentrate on reasons NOT to answer the question rather than actually answering the question.
You continue to demonstrate my point.

 

[jaydeehess]

An investigator would never ask a witness to draw a flight path from a tangential position, they would take bearings from the witness and fit that to other witnesses using basic navigation techniques to nail down there the flight was. For 77 we have RADAR, and FDR, and the flight 77 in the Pentagon.

Radar data pretty much makes eyewitness testimony a moot point since data storage records exactly what is sent to it, unlike the human memory.

Of course the CiT discount/dismiss/ignore radar data because it comes from the big bad gov't (B.B.G.).

Same goes for aircraft parts and photos. Came from the gov't therefore its tainted by (CiT) definition.
DNA --tainted by B.B.G.
Any eyewitness associated in any way with the gov't (what are the odds of that in Virginia/D.C.?) - tainted by B.B.G. at any time the CiT deems it neccessary for their scenario (case in point any reporter, since any reporter in the area will have been reporting on military/gov't issues in the past)
Any witness not shown to be associated with the gov't - open to be tainted by the B.B.G. at any point the CiT deem neccessay for their scenario. (case in point a simple taxi driver)

How anyone can look at the CiT videos or posts in these and other forums and not immediatly see blatant confirmation bias is beyond comprehension.

 

[jaydeehess]

I tried the magic trick about 100 times with a flight combat sim (LOMAC) using an A-10. Hitting the building, not a problem. Pulling up and over at the very last second, full throttle... not so much.

CE wants nothing to do with explaining the details of the pull up to me Justin. Perhaps you'd care to illuminate me then. How far out from the Pentagon does the CiT claim the plane was when it began its full power pull up and how fast was it travelling when it began this ascent?

Further to this, am I to understand that an A-10, a ground support, extremely agile and solidily built combat designed and combat power plant equipped aircraft was unable to duplicate the manouver that the CiT claims was performed by a 757 look-alike? At least with you at the controls of a sim.

 

[jaydeehess]

double post

 

[jaydeehess]

From another post in reply to the claim that the plane was moving slowly. Even this contains two references to the plane hitting the Pentagon.

Morin: "...the throttles were steady and full."
Creed: "...going full speed, going full throttle..."
Liebner: "It was wheels up, flaps up, engines full throttle. "
Marra: "...the pilot had the throttle completely floored."
Snaman: "...came in low at full throttle, banked left and smashed into the wall of the Pentagon."Khavkin: "The engine was at full throttle."
Regnery: "...apparently at full throttle ....this plane was too low and going too fast..."
Leonard: "...then went full throttle directly toward the building."
Owens: "I didn't think the careering, full-throttled craft would get that far."
Martinez: "...a big jet flying close to the building coming at full speed."
Clem: "...above treetop height at full speed headed for the Pentagon."
Plaisted: "...over my house at great speed and just above the treetops..."
Renzi: "...with incredibly high speed..."
Narayanan: "...slammed into the Pentagon at a ferocious speed."
Sucherman: "It was coming in at a high rate of speed, but not at a steep angle--almost like a heat-seeking missile was locked onto its target..."
Munsey: "...almost noiselessly over the Navy Annex, fast, low and straight toward the Pentagon..."
Barbara: "...was coming in too fast and the too low..."
Eberle: "...a jet airliner flying very low and very fast..."
Gaskins: "...was flying fast and low and the Pentagon was the obvious target."
Benedetto: "Then the plane flew right over my head. I said to myself, boy, that plane is going awfully fast."
Wallace: "It was about 200 yards away, and was coming in low and fast."
Gus: "I saw the plane. Low. Too low. Fast."
Stafford: "By then it was vastly approaching. It was quiet thought."
Lagasse: "...the aircraft was exceeding the speed that would allow gear to be extended."
Middleton: "He kicked the throttle. When I looked, went straight into the building.".

Anderson " I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. "
Anluaf ""Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon. It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon)."
Bauer "We looked out the front of our windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn’t until a few seconds later that we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon"

Boger ""I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building. It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."

Bouchoux "At 9:40 a.m. I was driving down Washington Boulevard (Route 27) along the side of the Pentagon when the aircraft crossed about 200 yards in front of me and impacted the side of the building. "

Bradley "I work in Washington DC area, and was on my way to work, in my car, sitting on a bridge, and saw the plane hit the Pentagon"

Cissell ''Out of my peripheral vision, I saw this plane coming in and it was low - and getting lower. ''If you couldn't touch it from standing on the highway, you could by standing on your car.'' ''I thought, 'This isn't really happening. That is a big plane.' Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board,'' Cissell said. ''I remember thinking, 'The World Trade Center was just the beginning, there's going to be more.' '' He remembers the helipad the plane flew over before smacking into the Pentagon was close enough to him that ''I could have thrown a baseball at it and hit it.'' While he remembers seeing the crash, Cissell remembers none of the sounds. ''It came in in a perfectly straight line,'' he said. ''It didn't slow down. I want to say it accelerated. It just shot straight in.''

Daryl Donley "It just was amazingly precise," Daryl Donley, another commuter, said of the plane's impact. "It completely disappeared into the Pentagon." The News Journal
"I could see the windows. I saw the entire plane and then saw it fly right into the Pentagon."

Eberle (a pilot himself) The aircraft was so very low -- as an aircraft would be on its final approach to an airport. However, if you have watched any aircraft come in for a landing, even though the aircraft is descending, it is angled up slightly. This aircraft was angled downward. In addition, landing gear would also be visible on a aircraft so low and so near landing. This aircraft had its landing gear retracted. Finally, an aircraft on final approach is traveling rather slowly. This aircraft sped by very loudly an very quickly. All of this flashed in my mind as the aircraft passed from behind my left shoulder to in front of me. It was then that the other events of the morning crystallized in the realization that tragedy was about to occur. With all of these images spinning in my head, the only words that came out of my mouth were "Oh no!" With that, the airliner crashed into the Pentagon and exploded.

let's skip to the "W"s
Washington "It was extremely loud, as you can imagine, a plane that size, it was deafening," Washington said. The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, Washington said, knocking over light poles before hitting the ground on a helicopter pad just in front of the Pentagon and essentially bouncing into it. It "landed there and the momentum took it into the Pentagon," Washington said. "There was a very, very brief delay and then it exploded." Washington speculated that it could have been worse: "If it had kept altitude a little bit higher it probably would have landed in the middle of the Pentagon, in that court."

Wright "I watched this - it looked like a commuter plane, two-engined come down from the south real low proceed right on and crash right into the Pentagon. I watched it come in very low over the trees and it just dipped down and came down right over 395 right into the Pentagon."


I read almost every account and found none that had the plane about to hit or hitting an upper storey.

No one at all seems to have seen the plane rise up except Turcois and he says it rose up only to clear the roadway embankment then it went down again beyond the road,,,, and that is only if you believe Turcois in the first place(which CE does).

 

[BCR]

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.

No CE, facts are facts. Turcios was not where he said he was and did not do what he said he did. He could not see half of what he said he saw. Hence, he is guilty of either bad recall or lying. I have always contended it was bad recall, but since you want to use his account to claim another JREF member is lying, then we have to use the same standard.

 

[jaydeehess]

No CE, facts are facts. Turcios was not where he said he was and did not do what he said he did. He could not see half of what he said he saw. Hence, he is guilty of either bad recall or lying. I have always contended it was bad recall, but since you want to use his account to claim another JREF member is lying, then we have to use the same standard.

I have also included reasoning in which one does believe Turcois to show that the CiT excitement at his rising aircraft simply does not jive with a fly over since he says it rose over, then went down beyond the roadway.

either way Turcois is not a flyover witness.

 

[Justin39640]

CE wants nothing to do with explaining the details of the pull up to me Justin. Perhaps you'd care to illuminate me then. How far out from the Pentagon does the CiT claim the plane was when it began its full power pull up and how fast was it travelling when it began this ascent?

It'd have to be close enough to fool people that it hit and make it over. I can't get up close (and close enough to the ground to make people think I skimmed it) and pull out in time. Here's what it looks like when I make it.

I don't think it would fool people. I have to start climbing too soon.

Close, but no cigar:

Stalled a tad too.

The plane must also survive passing over a giant explosion. In the sim, getting too close to your target results in this:
http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_101j.html

Further to this, am I to understand that an A-10, a ground support, extremely agile and solidily built combat designed and combat power plant equipped aircraft was unable to duplicate the manouver that the CiT claims was performed by a 757 look-alike? At least with you at the controls of a sim.

Pretty much, and going a bit slower.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

If only these guys would ask a real lawyer how to use witness testimony... CIT is incapable of this apparently... or they hope that people will forget about it if they ignore their problems long enough...

 

[The Big Dog]

Do you really still think that trying to bait me into nonsensical and uncivil exchanges with you works, 16.5? I gave beachnut a brief audience recently and it was promptly moved to AAH - including some topical posts of mine. I know your game.

Hi CE!

You have accused a member here of attacking a witness, and acted outraged about it.

I pointed out that was extremely hypocritical, because your heroes have produced shoddy videos accusing several witnesses of mass murder.

They also accused, well lets just start with Boger of lying.

Yet, from CE what do we hear? Nothing... Well we do hear that CIT's attacks on England are "nonsensical."

CE knows my game, folks, the way I point out all those facts that CE finds inconvenient about her fraudulent pals.

See the raw videos yet CE?

 

[jaydeehess]

The plane must also survive passing over a giant explosion. In the sim, getting too close to your target results in this:
http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_101j.html



Pretty much, and going a bit slower.

I recall an interview with a F-4 pilot who took a SAM hit over Veitnam.

He said something very close to;
"Suddenly the aircraft rocked to starboard then tipped nose down, warning sounds and lights were all going off, gauges went to zero, and my stick flopped around, and I thought to myself "I don't think this thing is gonna fly anymore."".

 

[carlitos]

I apologize for bumpimg this, but I thought others might be amused. I was searching for evidence that Venezuela had renamed citgo stations, and this thread was result #19.

 

[tfk]

Madre Dios,

What is to become of a visual eyesore, uh, icon of the loyal fans of Fenway Park??

tk

 

[DGM]

I'm not sure if I should have saved this for last. As it is so long but, there are new members that might not have seen this, I said, what the heck.


Into to CIT 101 (I know there are others but, I'm lazy)

 

[Childlike Empress]

Watching the presentation "National Security Alert" before reading the thread will greatly improve new members' ability to understand what is talked about.

 

[DGM]

Watching the presentation "National Security Alert" before reading the thread will greatly improve new members' ability to understand what is talked about.

Wasn't that where the thread started (Post #19)?

So, What's new?