I love this photo from CIT! Proof they manufactured a delusion, but are dumb enough to leave evidence to debunk their lies.I have no idea why you do this to yourself. Look at the Paik's path again, and then look at your pic.
Army Center for Military History FOIA Complete
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,778
Hell, they could even try to get in touch with Osama bin Laden so they can give him the evidence that would clear his organization's name. I'm sure he would be very receptive to further proof of the Great Satan's continued deceptions.
Last edited:
BCR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,278
I still have not figured out how 13 witnesses who saw either the plane hit the Pentagon, or disappear at the Pentagon, are evidence of a "fly-over". I ranked 98th and 99th percentiles on intelligence assessments back in the day, but the CIT boys must be the 100th percentile, because I sure don't get it.
UNLoVedRebel,
I can't believe you are still using that horribly deceptive jref member produced image on top of Paik's illustration.
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.
Only in Bizzaro World it does. I think the horrible deception is in your blatanly inaccurate extention of Ed Paik's hand-drawn path.
The image below is a much fairer representation of that extended path.
Agree?
BV
Just in case TLB is not smart enough to figure this out, here is something that he cannot possibly refute or spin: Paik's hand drawn path has the plane flying to the south of the white corridor connecting the wings of the Navy Annex. The stupid, delusion fraud that drew the one TLB gave (it is from Craig's photobucket) is "fixed" so it goes north of there and thus NoC. Why the hell did he do that TLB? Are you seriously going to try and keep up the charade that the Complete Idiot Team is honest?
TheLoneBedouin
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 733
bonavada said:
No absolutely not. Besides the fact that a plane on the path you drew would hit the Sheraton it would ALSO be 100% fatal to the official story since the plane being directly over the Navy Annex at all is irreconcilable with all official reports, data, and the physical damage.
But that is not the heading that Ed Paik illustrates in ANY of the images
So no matter how many times you re-draw what Ed Paik already illustrated or you try to micro-scrutinize a few feet difference between the different perspective in his 3 illustrations (while also ignoring what he says and where he points) you can not change the FACT that Paik has the entire plane crossing from the south to the north side of Columbia Pike right over him in a heading bringing it directly over the Navy Annex.
North of Columbia Pike and/or over the Navy Annex is irreconcilable with all official data, reports, and the physical damage proving the plane did not hit the building.
This is what Ed Paik, Terry Morin, and all the ANC and citgo witnesses prove happened.
Last edited:
TheLoneBedouin
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 733
Mackey,
Scientists don't put a hypothesis before evidence.
That is completely contradictory to everything that the scientific process is about.
This thread is not about a hypothesis nor is it necessary to accept any hypothesis in order to accept the north side evidence. The notion is ridiculous.
This is your transparent approach to dodge this issue.
You are refusing to even acknowledge the evidence presented let alone refute it based on nothing but blanket dismissal of a hypothesis.
In fact you haven't even viewed it! THAT alone proves you have no ability to consider the information objectively or scientifically.
It's pathetic and shows how you're scared.
If you don't like CIT's hypothesis that's fine but at least be honest and admit that you have nothing to refute the evidence.
You do not have a legitimate reason to dismiss the fact that the entire body of current first-hand eyewitness evidence from people in the most critical vantage points of the citgo gas station place the plane on the north side.
Feel free to come up with your own hypothesis that incorporates the north side approach evidence but you have no room to dimss it without providing any independent evidence to the contrary.
That would be unscientific and expose a confirmation bias on your part.
Scientists don't put a hypothesis before evidence.
That is completely contradictory to everything that the scientific process is about.
This thread is not about a hypothesis nor is it necessary to accept any hypothesis in order to accept the north side evidence. The notion is ridiculous.
This is your transparent approach to dodge this issue.
You are refusing to even acknowledge the evidence presented let alone refute it based on nothing but blanket dismissal of a hypothesis.
In fact you haven't even viewed it! THAT alone proves you have no ability to consider the information objectively or scientifically.
It's pathetic and shows how you're scared.
If you don't like CIT's hypothesis that's fine but at least be honest and admit that you have nothing to refute the evidence.
You do not have a legitimate reason to dismiss the fact that the entire body of current first-hand eyewitness evidence from people in the most critical vantage points of the citgo gas station place the plane on the north side.
Feel free to come up with your own hypothesis that incorporates the north side approach evidence but you have no room to dimss it without providing any independent evidence to the contrary.
That would be unscientific and expose a confirmation bias on your part.
Last edited:
BCR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,278
No, it is about the CMH historical release. You are the one who keeps pushing an NoC hypothesis in contradiction to those eyewitnesses who for the most part claim the plane hit the Pentagon. That is their claim, NOT a hypothesis. You are pushing a hypothesis (NoC) based on well-known and understood eyewitness recall errors (off-topic).
Did you ever consider that he thinks that you along with the CIT/PFT are insane?
Did you ever consider that just maybe he has better things to do with his life then engage in viewing cartoons of fantasy?
Maybe he just needed to wash his hair?
1000's of other options in addition to your theory of, "scared"!
Oh man there is PLENTY that refutes your paper thin fantasy!
You are just too deluded to realize it!
Sorry forgive my spelling but does that Turcias person say he say a flyover?
No thanks I will believe the fine men and women who removed plane parts, DNA, body part, etc that prove what really happened!
No. You're dodging. Once again, this is what I said:
I went ahead and emphasized something for you so that you get it this time. I'm not disputing what a handful of people may have said. I accept that not all the witness testimony agrees. It never will. And that's fine, it happens all the time. We are finished with the fact-finding phase of the scientific method (for now).
What we do next, a step you are resisting, is form a hypothesis.
Now, you've already done that, and that's fine. You are, in fact, selling a hypothesis, namely your whole "North of CITGO flightpath" or whatever it is today. You've already moved on, yet you're complaining about me for wanting to consider a hypothesis.
In other words, you're tapdancing.
Now, please, just answer my question and stop with the nonsense. This is the fourth time I'm asking. I'll put it right here, again, so you don't even have to hunt for it:
Now, if you can't or won't answer that, your hypothesis is DOA.
This doesn't mean we throw out facts or evidence. It means we hunt for a new hypothesis. Understand? We only start throwing out facts or looking for new evidence if there is no hypothesis that makes sense.
So stop the idiocy, claiming I'm "scared" or "pseudoskeptic" or whatever, making up lies about how I haven't viewed this or that. Namecalling won't buy you anything. I've written papers on the scientific method, I know it well, and I'm attempting to follow it with you. Stop distracting. Either work with me on the process, or if you can't, then we all know just how much your ideas are worth. Finis.
Last edited:
Really? So go ahead and throw Mr. Prather's and Mr. Carter's paths away.
The issue was whether or not that pic was fraudulent. Mr. Paik's SoC path is not in there. And, from what I can tell, only part of the FOB path that doesn't even show the Citgo. That gives CIT NO JUSTIFICATION to say "13 unamimous witnesses place the plane here." This proves CIT is being INTENTIONALLY deceptive.
Last edited:
TheLoneBedouin
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 733
Mackey,
You're getting worked up because logic has you in a corner.
Scientists do not require a hypothesis to accept evidence.
It simply doesn't work that way.
The north side evidence, if accepted as valid, proves the physical damage was not caused by the plane.
Whatever hypothesis you choose to explain what happened to the plane after it passed NoC is up to you but it is completely unnecessary to validate the north side evidence.
That should be common sense.
But the fact that you have refused to even view the evidence (and that is not a lie, since your question is answered in "The Second Plane Coverstory" and "The Flyover: How They Pulled It Off") means you really aren't in an intellectual position to comment on the issue at all.
You're getting worked up because logic has you in a corner.
Scientists do not require a hypothesis to accept evidence.
It simply doesn't work that way.
The north side evidence, if accepted as valid, proves the physical damage was not caused by the plane.
Whatever hypothesis you choose to explain what happened to the plane after it passed NoC is up to you but it is completely unnecessary to validate the north side evidence.
That should be common sense.
But the fact that you have refused to even view the evidence (and that is not a lie, since your question is answered in "The Second Plane Coverstory" and "The Flyover: How They Pulled It Off") means you really aren't in an intellectual position to comment on the issue at all.
Last edited:
stateofgrace
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,843
WRONG.
The physical damage left by the plane proves your theory utterly and completely wrong.
I now lurk here and to be honest cannot even begin to understand why anybody would engage you ,let alone extend you any form of courteously,but alas some do. I personally find your entirely theory and your general approach to this subject utterly distasteful.
You accuse those who question you of being pathetic, being scared or any other rubbish you feel the need to type in to justify your belief in this utterly ridiculous scenario you and a couple of others whom laughably call themselves the Citizen investigation team have dreamed up.
If your evidence was so irrefutable what on earth are you doing here? Why on earth are you not presenting it to the authorities, why are you not hiring some sharp lawyer to bring about a civil court case? What on earth is wrong with you? You claim to have irrefutable evidence of a mass murder plot but rather than actually do something you spend hours defending the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard on an internet forum.
Tell you what pal get the wheels in motion, get it up before a judge, take along all your witnesses, whom I’m sure will back you to the hilt and you may command something other than dismissal. Until then, one can only assume you are terrified to do so, I wonder why.
Back to lurking for me, I really have not the stomach for this utter nonsense anymore, but could you at least do everybody a HUGH favour. Stop derailing every single thread where the word Pentagon appears with this nonsense, some of us are actually interesting in the topic of the thread, not your endless derailments.
Last edited:
The issue is simple. He doesn't want a coherent hypothesis because he's happy with the "investigation" in limbo, just like he's happy with this "conversation" going nowhere.
Following this "investigation" is like reading a novel with no nouns or verbs. It's like listening to a symphony with only parallel 5th and parallel 8ths. It's like a biologist looking for the evolutionary ancestors of unicorns...... It's a complete waste of time.
Following this "investigation" is like reading a novel with no nouns or verbs. It's like listening to a symphony with only parallel 5th and parallel 8ths. It's like a biologist looking for the evolutionary ancestors of unicorns...... It's a complete waste of time.
