Army Center for Military History FOIA Complete

[beachnut]

Given Roosevelt Roberts does not know the time of day in his testimony; you can throw out his disjointed testimony and go with Boger who saw Flight 77 touch the exact impact point at over 535 mph. Boger is in, Roberts is out. This is based on my training as an aircraft accident investigator.

BTW, a first grade education with cause and effect would drop the Roberts testimony due to massive time confusion, and use Boger! First grade is as good as Trained Aircraft Accident Investigator and First Grade cause and effect is 10 times better than CIT doltish attempt at investigation.

The only person dumb enough to us CIT is Balsamo who can’t even make a theory on 911. No wonder he can’t debate, he has no theory, nothing to debate. He could debate why he keeps his 11.2G idiot math up. Or his 57 degree bank turn when no one saw a bank turn of more than 10 degrees in the final 20 seconds.

Am I the only one who saw all the ANC (grave diggers?) guys pointing to the SoC path that knocked down the lampposts? Why does CIT have them pointing to the south? Is it a comedy video, making fun of Craig? Why does Craig start talking as the CIT witnesses start to say things that clearly debunk Craig’s delusional conclusions?

Am I the only person who sees CIT witnesses pointing to the south? lol

 

[R.Mackey]

Let me say at the outset that I appreciate your frank answers to my questions. This is progress.

Depends on how much you mean by "much more". The overwhelming majority of witnesses simply either saw or heard a plane and saw or heard the explosion.

I chose my words carefully -- "much more" than the witnesses you focus on, i.e. >> 13.

I'm aware that many people didn't see the moment of impact one way or the other. That's fine. You could add, for instance, thousands of people inside who had no chance to see it at all, and their presence would not in any way conflict with the normal impact hypothesis. What I was looking for (and I believe I have) is an acknowledgment that the normal hypothesis is supported by a non-trivial amount of people who did actually see it.

Yes. And the vast majority did not claim to actually see the impact, but nevertheless nearly everyone claims that Flight 77 impacted, regardless of whether they even saw the plane or if their story contradicts the official story. What are the implications of this fact? Think!

There are no implications of this fact. The impact was a rapid event and not visible from all aspects. Some saw it, many did not. Those who did not see it contribute less to our understanding of the event. Pretty basic stuff.

No. It's been answered in CIT's presentations.

I still haven't seen it and I again can only assume you don't understand what I'm asking. I'll try again below.

If, as you claim, you are a physicist and are trained in the scientfic method, why would claim a hypothesis is "the stupidest ever conceived" without viewing the evidence?

I'm sure you lot have verified my credentials already and know I have a physics degree, so you can drop the well-poisoning. Also, on what basis do you claim I haven't viewed the evidence? This isn't a problem of me being uninformed, it's a problem of you presenting a stupendously absurd hypothesis. Again, I'll explain below.

And why, when I asked you if Reheat's NOC paper followed the protocols of constructing mathematical models, did you insist that it was accurate, despite a huge number of assumptions including the completely false claim that Morin was out between the wings of the Navy Annex?

I don't believe you ever have asked me this question? Sure you aren't confusing yourself with some other poster?

I think we know the answer- despite your claims of unbiased objectivity you clearly have a confirmation bias in favor of the official story, as do the majority of the JREF clique.

That's another excuse for which you have no evidence. It borders on inflation.

Anyway, here's the problem: As you agreed to above, you believe that (a) AA 77 did not hit the Pentagon, and (b) the aircraft that buzzed the Pentagon was almost completely different from the AA 77 story in every detail -- wrong heading, wrong color, did not actually impact, flew away afterward in a different direction, did not and could not impact lighter obstacles as claimed, left no debris (and that which somehow was left is incompatible and insufficient), etc.

Why on earth would They do this?

Why wouldn't They, at least, fly an aircraft on the correct heading? Wearing American Airlines's colors? Even actually hit those light poles and such before hedgehopping the Pentagon?

What you're proposing is an aircraft that flagrantly and deliberately disproves the story They want us to believe. Why? What's in it for them?? Even if they flew no aircraft at all, it would be less damaging to their plans. This makes absolutely no sense to me.

So, indulge me. I'm pretty confident this answer does not appear in any Citizens's Investiwhatever production, but maybe I'm just being dense. You must know the answer. Please share.

 

[Baylor]

Let's see if the plane flew over the pentagon.



Nope.

I wonder if CIT would've embarked on their ambitious project if they saw this video first.

 

[beachnut]

Let's see if the plane flew over the pentagon.



Nope.

I wonder if CIT would've embarked on their ambitious project if they saw this video first.

No flyover for Roberts. Gee, it would be all there! But at 535 mph, the turn is impossible.

CIT, insane ideas on 911; the cornered the market.

Where is the flyover?

 

[bje]

Given Roosevelt Roberts and the CMH flyover witnesses, even if this is valid, it is a moot point.

Of course it's not a moot point. It's just the opposite. It's just more inconvenient evidence for you that you have to deny.

For if Roosevelt Roberts were to have actually witnessed a flyover (which you and we know he didn't) then so would have scores and scores of others all around the Pentagon. But there are absolutely NO eyewitnesses or any reports of any jet flying over and away from the Pentagon as you claim.

 

[Baylor]

Now here is what ALL of these critical witnesses reported:

So it's unanimous.

Where's Paik's SoC flight path in that photo?

Where's Keith Wheelhouse's?

So it's not unanimious.

CIT's conclusions are proven fraudulent.

 

[Mr.Herbert]

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

Glad to see you keeping the streak alive Bananaman!!!

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Mackey,

Nothing you have said refutes or even addresses the evidence that the plane was on a northern approach. The evidence in question is NOT a "stupendously absurd hypothesis" or even a hypothesis at all. It is evidence. Your posts indicate that you are arguing against this evidence without having bothered to view it. So have you? Have you viewed/listened to each and every one of the first-hand witness accounts in question in full? Have you viewed any of them?

If not this exposes you as a pseudo-skeptic. Your questions amount to nothing but an elaborate argument from incredulity which is a logical fallacy. Faulty logic does not refute evidence. You are simply asking questions as a means to control the discussion and direct it AWAY from the evidence that you clearly have not even bothered to view.

That is not scientific.

That is deceptive.

I challenge you to view the evidence in full and create your own thread directly refuting it. We already know that you are forced to argue against the witnesses in order to preserve the official story.

True to critical thinking principles CIT has clearly laid out how the north side approach evidence they present is falsifiable.

That would require at least 13 first-hand definitive southern approach witness accounts from people with an equal to or better than vantage point than the northern approach witnesses.

If you can't provide that then you are forced to argue from a position of nothing but faith against the people who were really there and witnessed the plane.

As it stands you have only demonstrated a complete lack of regard for science by refusing to even bother viewing the evidence. It's really pretty sad.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

UNLoVedRebel,

I can't believe you are still using that horribly deceptive jref member produced image on top of Paik's illustration.

First of all Paik places the plane north of Columbia Pike and directly over the Navy Annex which is just as fatal to the official story as NoC.

But for that graphic to be accurate the citgo would have to be located at the base of the Navy Annex where the Air Force Memorial is now.

It's not.

If you extended the exact same TRAJECTORY as illustrated by Paik over the proper DISTANCE between the Navy Annex and citgo you will see that the plane ends up squarely NoC.

As far as Wheelhouse goes his account is proven false in ALL respects and we know that if his stated location is accurate that he would not have been able to see the plane on the low and level official flight path at all let alone the citgo.

Here is an exclusive private image that Wheelhouse provided to CIT that is exactly from his stated POV:

Wheelhouse's patently false "shadowing" claim is strong evidence for a deliberately planted 2nd plane cover story but he is DEFINITELY not a valid SoC witness.

It's rather telling that this is the ONLY guy whose illustration matches the official story.

 

[dtugg]

I wonder what happened when the Complete Idiot Team asked their witnesses to resolve the two mutually exclusive claims. Either the plane flew NoC or it hit the Pentagon. They did do that right? I mean that is the first thing any competent investigator would do. A delusional charlatan on the other hand would just make up a fantasy about the plane flying over the Pentagon.

 

[R.Mackey]

Mackey,

Nothing you have said refutes or even addresses the evidence that the plane was on a northern approach. The evidence in question is NOT a "stupendously absurd hypothesis" or even a hypothesis at all. It is evidence.

Look, friend, you're being evasive.

I'm not talking about "evidence." I'm talking about your hypothesis. I'm not confusing them. You are going out of your way to confuse them.

In your previous reply, you admit that there are witness statements -- a form of evidence, but hardly conclusive, though that isn't important here -- both pro and con your hypothesis.

I'm asking you to explain, even if I accept your evidence, how your hypothesis is even remotely credible.

You seem adamant in avoiding such an explanation. Try again.

Your posts indicate that you are arguing against this evidence without having bothered to view it. So have you? Have you viewed/listened to each and every one of the first-hand witness accounts in question in full? Have you viewed any of them?

If not this exposes you as a pseudo-skeptic.

Call to Perfection and ad Hominem.

This isn't about me, friend, or what I've seen or haven't seen. You have no idea how many interviews I've read, seen, or personally conducted. But that doesn't matter. It's not about me. It's about whether or not you can construct an argument that makes any logical sense.

So far, you haven't even attempted to show that you can.

True to critical thinking principles CIT has clearly laid out how the north side approach evidence they present is falsifiable.

That would require at least 13 first-hand definitive southern approach witness accounts from people with an equal to or better than vantage point than the northern approach witnesses.

Actually, no, this is in no way a valid estimate of the burden of proof. But we'll tackle that next. First, answer my question: Why would They do what you claim They did? The hypothesis you have laid out is utterly counterproductive, and makes no sense. Convince me otherwise. I'm not talking about facts, I'm talking about your interpretation of those facts. Proceed.

 

[Bobert]

Mackey,

Nothing you have said refutes or even addresses the evidence that the plane was on a northern approach. The evidence in question is NOT a "stupendously absurd hypothesis" or even a hypothesis at all. It is evidence. Your posts indicate that you are arguing against this evidence without having bothered to view it. So have you? Have you viewed/listened to each and every one of the first-hand witness accounts in question in full? Have you viewed any of them?

If not this exposes you as a pseudo-skeptic. Your questions amount to nothing but an elaborate argument from incredulity which is a logical fallacy. Faulty logic does not refute evidence. You are simply asking questions as a means to control the discussion and direct it AWAY from the evidence that you clearly have not even bothered to view.

That is not scientific.

That is deceptive.

I challenge you to view the evidence in full and create your own thread directly refuting it. We already know that you are forced to argue against the witnesses in order to preserve the official story.

True to critical thinking principles CIT has clearly laid out how the north side approach evidence they present is falsifiable.

That would require at least 13 first-hand definitive southern approach witness accounts from people with an equal to or better than vantage point than the northern approach witnesses.

If you can't provide that then you are forced to argue from a position of nothing but faith against the people who were really there and witnessed the plane.

As it stands you have only demonstrated a complete lack of regard for science by refusing to even bother viewing the evidence. It's really pretty sad.

ALL of your rhetoric and NOT A SINGLE WITNESS TO YOUR MAKE BELIEVE FLYOVER!
ALL OF YOUR RHETORIC and a majority of the CIT witness SAY THAT FLIGHT 77 HIT THE PENTAGON
ZERO WITNESS SAY
The Plane flew up up and away over the Pentagon
ZERO WITNESS SAY
Light poles were secretly removed and then replanted
ZERO WITNESS SAY
DNA was planted
ZERO WITNESS SAW
Men In Black planted Flight 77 parts
ZERO WITNESS SAW
A frozen cadaver being planted at the Pentagon
ZERO WITNESS SAW
Civilian contractors planting explosives

The sane normal world views the ilk like you as a sick radical fringe spewing nonsense and pissing on those that died and the 100's of workers who dedicated hours upon hours of healing the injured and combing through the DNA of the dead so that their families can have some sort peace.
You are a joke who very rarely if ever takes your supposed evidence to a real court of law or real media.
Dr. Judy Woods and that Ryan whacko at least had the nutsack to stand up in court.
The CIT chooses to hide behind the cloak of an internet forum and spew their sickness.
And when they do venture outside it is to shows like the "Howard Stern Wrap Up Show" almost a self induced mockery of your own evidence to do this.

 

[Bell]

If not this exposes you as a pseudo-skeptic. Your questions amount to nothing but an elaborate argument from incredulity which is a logical fallacy. Faulty logic does not refute evidence. You are simply asking questions as a means to control the discussion and direct it AWAY from the evidence that you clearly have not even bothered to view.

That is not scientific.

That is deceptive.

 

[Bell]

Here is an exclusive private image that Wheelhouse provided to CIT that is exactly from his stated POV:

That picture can't be from the Pentagon. The timestamp is not right.

 

[Bobert]

As far as Wheelhouse goes his account is proven false in ALL respects and we know that if his stated location is accurate that he would not have been able to see the plane on the low and level official flight path at all let alone the citgo.

Here is an exclusive private image that Wheelhouse provided to CIT that is exactly from his stated POV:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/09110001.jpg

Wheelhouse's patently false "shadowing" claim is strong evidence for a deliberately planted 2nd plane cover story but he is DEFINITELY not a valid SoC witness.

It's rather telling that this is the ONLY guy whose illustration matches the official story.

Oh WOW look at that!
Wheelhouse would have had the ultimate FRONT ROW SEAT to your psychotic, delusional flyover!
WAIT A SECOND!!
So when will Wheelhouse be standing before a court to talk about the flyover?

 

[Bobert]

Yes agree.
He just spouts a bunch of big words together and thinks because he sounds smart that people will believe him.

 

[Bell]

Yes agree.
He just spouts a bunch of big words together and thinks because he sounds smart that people will believe him.

I'm wondering where in the hell TLB found the ******* nerve to acuse Mackey of not viewing the evidence.

TLB and the CIT heads are the ones who refuse to look at the (real) evidence.

*facepalm*

 

[Baylor]

UNLoVedRebel,

I can't believe you are still using that horribly deceptive jref member produced image on top of Paik's illustration.

First of all Paik places the plane north of Columbia Pike and directly over the Navy Annex which is just as fatal to the official story as NoC.

But for that graphic to be accurate the citgo would have to be located at the base of the Navy Annex where the Air Force Memorial is now.

It's not.

If you extended the exact same TRAJECTORY as illustrated by Paik over the proper DISTANCE between the Navy Annex and citgo you will see that the plane ends up squarely NoC.

.

I have no idea why you do this to yourself. Look at the Paik's path again, and then look at your pic.

I don't have to explain why yours is decpetive. I know that 100% of the people who look at it can figure it out. And we all know why you didn't continue the line.

All I want from you is to tell us why you think anyone in his right mind would be taken in by it.

 

[dtugg]

I still want to know why TLB bothers arguing with us pseudoskeptic government loyalists. Shouldn't he have better things to do like taking the "evidence" to the world's media (hell take it to al Jazeera or are they controlled by the NWO too) and bringing the "perps" to justice?

 

[beachnut]

I still want to know why TLB bothers arguing with us pseudoskeptic government loyalists. Shouldn't he have better things to do like taking the "evidence" to the world's media (hell take it to al Jazeera or are they controlled by the NWO too) and bringing the "perps" to justice?

Not a market for fantasy on the news.