Army Center for Military History FOIA Complete

[The Big Dog]

Of course they have.

Hollee Cripes: Craig-y handwaves her away two years after he linked her article at Pentacon!

Wow, TLB, you actually believe this clown, and his chunky mute friend Aldo?

 

[T.A.M.]

TLB is back, on defense now, as he watches 911files crush and crumble the CIT world around him.

I swear he has posted about 20 posts in what, 2 hours?

TAM

 

[A W Smith]

Furthermore CIT obviously identified Lisa Burgess right away. Their rebuttal to her account never references her being "anon" and is mostly focused on the fact that her actual POV is unconfirmed, the exact location of the flyover is unknown, and that she specifically says she was pre-occupied and in a hurry when the explosion happened knocking her against the wall.

Naturally this woud impede whatever split second view of the flyover she could have possibly had even if there was one.

are you claiming she would not hear the unmistakable sounds of a jumbojet flying over the pentagon from an inner hallway facing the courtyard? she could not have been more than 800 feet from the impact.

this is what a jet sounds like at twice that distance.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

are you claiming she would not hear the unmistakable sounds of a jumbojet flying over the pentagon from an inner hallway facing the courtyard?

No, I'm claiming absense of evidence is not evidence.

However, it is not implausible that she didn't hear the plane (assuming it made the level of noise you claim it would have) when we consider other reports:

Mike Dobbs, 9/13/01 [A] . "... we saw a plane coming toward us, for about 10 seconds ... It was like watching a train wreck. I was mesmerized. ... At first I thought it was trying to crash land, but it was coming in so deliberately, so level... Everyone said there was a deafening explosion, but with the adrenaline, we didn't hear it." St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Lexis-Nexis - Philip Dine)

Furthermore, we don't know the noise level of her surroundings (explosions, people screaming/running, etc.).

Obviously, without a detailed first-hand account with witness point of view, it's ridiculous to claim she must have seen or heard anything.

 

[BCR]

Better check again.

No sir, you better check again. Others in the thread have linked it.

 

[A W Smith]

No, I'm claiming absense of evidence is not evidence.

However, it is not implausible that she didn't hear the plane (assuming it made the level of noise you claim it would have) when we consider other reports:



Furthermore, we don't know the noise level of her surroundings (explosions, people screaming/running, etc.).

Obviously, without a detailed first-hand account with witness point of view, it's ridiculous to claim she must have seen or heard anything.

that's insanity, she never stated that anybody was screaming. Are you claiming it flew over the pentagon? yes or no? she would have HAD to hear it only 80 feet over her head, don't act like an idiot, you know it, i know it, everyone reading this knows it, theres no way out TLB. She didn't see it flyover, she didn't here it flyover, you are done,

Everyone said there was a deafening explosion, but with the adrenaline, we didn't hear it

what adrenaline? She never saw the plane approaching like the other witnesses, all she saw was the explosion, she had no time to build adrenaline,

 

[BCR]

That is not what happened at all. You are failing to quote CIT so you can misrepresent their claims.

I posted the title of Craig's ATS thread and linked the entire thing. Much better than quoting. Craig was having an orgasm before even talking to the guy.

 

[Baylor]

However, it is not implausible that she didn't hear the plane.

Yes it is.

 

[BCR]

No, I'm claiming absense of evidence is not evidence

In other words, with the complete absence of evidence for a fly-over is evidence of a fly-over?

 

[Baylor]

If 100% of the witnesses said the plane flew over the pentagon, and there was video footage of the plane flying over the pentagon, would CIT say the plane hit the building?

 

[beachnut]

No, I'm claiming absense of evidence is not evidence.
...

What is the DNA and the FDR?
Evidence you can’t refute so you say in your best p4t/CIT sounding paranoid drawl, it was faked by the delusional culprits made up and unnamed by p4t/CIT lousy research group, cause you are a terrorist apologist and you love to spread lies? Why can't you refute the DNA and FDR with evidence?

What is neat, your p4t/CIT stuff is totally ignored by the real world media except to say your ideas are nut case ideas. Why is the real media missing all your smoking guns and other lies? When will you see Balsamo is making up implied lies for you to spread as he sells DVDs for 15 dollars?

You have no flight experience; based on your posts. Don't expect p4t to have a clue, they even tell you they have no theories. Is this a theory from p4t? No, p4t have no theories.

Are you getting a cut of the DVD sales for posting lies here?

 

[EvilBiker]

No, I'm claiming absense of evidence is not evidence.

Argh, you CIT lot keep on misusing this phrase! It's "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", dammit!

Different kettle of fish. Cherry picking Using half a quote makes you look foolish, and you really don't need to increase your score on that front.

 

[jhunter1163]

At ATS, the claim is made that "we don't know the exact location of the flyover". Well, yes, we do. If the plane had gone north of the official-story impact point, the illusion would have been spoiled and the ANC witnesses would have seen it. If it had gone south of that point, the people on 395 would have seen it. So, it had to have gone directly through the fireball, with all the risks and problems that entails.

ETA: Actually, it went into the wall of the Pentagon, thus creating the fireball. I was speaking hypothetically above.

 

[BCR]

At ATS, the claim is made that "we don't know the exact location of the flyover". Well, yes, we do. If the plane had gone north of the official-story impact point, the illusion would have been spoiled and the ANC witnesses would have seen it. If it had gone south of that point, the people on 395 would have seen it. So, it had to have gone directly through the fireball, with all the risks and problems that entails.

ETA: Actually, it went into the wall of the Pentagon, thus creating the fireball. I was speaking hypothetically above.

You have more patience than I. I drop in at ATS maybe once a day to see what the latest is, and if I'm in the mood I'll leave a post. But to resolve the issue may not take too much longer. On my list of FBI videos (beginning to trickle in now) is the security camera footage from this garage near Joyce (the street the Citgo is on) and I-395 (south side of the interstate). If there is any sky view at all (which no doubt there is), then we should be able to see this mysterious fly-over. Getting nervous Craig?

This is a shot facing towards the Navy Annex from the garage area. Oh my, what it that on my dashboard? Hint for Craig: Google Whelen Talon.

 

[T.A.M.]

This is getting amusing, in a most positive way.

TAM

 

[bonavada]

Your belief is not evidence.
Anonymous reports are not evidence.
That's the difference between you and CIT. They provide evidence and you are merely going off pure faith.
Find out who he is, prove he is even a real person that exists, confirm his account direct, find out what his true location was, document his exact POV, and THEN present your findings.
This is exactly what CIT provides so for you to reject this hard evidence and accept anything less in favor of the south side approach only exposes your confirmation bias.

My dictionary gives a definition of the word belief as "mental acceptance of something as true, even though absolute certainty may be absent"

So I'm happy with my words. Your toying with sematics takes nothing away from the main thrust of my assertions

The fact is that, if true, this mans words totally destroy the CIT version of the events on 9-11. Do you agree?

I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the statement. I have an inkling that if I tracked down this man, verified his credentials, took him to your doorstep and got him to repeat the same story you would still not "believe" it. Would you? You seem to have too much invested in the CIT narrative.

One would think that as "searchers for the truth" CIT would seek out this man and verify or disprove his story. Why don't they?

BV

 

[Mr.Herbert]

Y On my list of FBI videos (beginning to trickle in now) is the security camera footage from this garage near Joyce (the street the Citgo is on) and I-395 (south side of the interstate). If there is any sky view at all (which no doubt there is), then we should be able to see this mysterious fly-over. Getting nervous Craig?

John,

Dude, you should know better by now. Craig has already prepared for when this happens. He has already stated...

(I am paraphrasing)

"The videos have been in the possession of the suspects too long and therefor we can not accept them as evidence."

Still, I can not wait for this video...if it has what we are hoping for!

 

[jaydeehess]

John,

Dude, you should know better by now. Craig has already prepared for when this happens. He has already stated...

(I am paraphrasing)

"The videos have been in the possession of the suspects too long and therefor we can not accept them as evidence."

Though the same could be said for the supposedly faked FDR. The perpetrators had ample time to install fake data on a flash memory and claim it came from AA77 in which the data shows the aircraft's position along the flight path right up to the moment of impact.

But further to these videos being in the possession of the supposed perpetrators for such a long time; if all they were doing was faking them then they could have been released years ago. Just how backed up is the NWO edit suite anyway?

 

[A W Smith]

Chicken before the egg

Back to Lisa Burgess

It is claimed that the explosion would distract her from seeing the flyover, but theres a problem. On the Columbia drive side of the pentagon CIT claims the witness failed to see the plane fly over because it was cloaked by the fireball. But you cannot use that claim for both sides of the pentagon. Is it CIT's claim that the plane preceded the fireball? or flew through it?

 

[jaydeehess]

I wonder why TLB won't bother to answer the question;
If the ANC winesses were correct enough about the distance to the plane to draw their diagrams with the plane fully to the north side of the Annex(in Middleton's case completely north of the Annex) then how does the CiT/PfT assume that their estimate of distance is bad enough such that Paik and Morin's accounts can also be correct?

Paik thought is possible that the aircraft had damaged the VDOT tower and pointed down Columbia Pike while Morin states that the plane (assume the fuselage) was within 20 feet of being directly over the south edge of the Annex (the wing would be over, or on the edge of, Columbia Pike.

and
Why was there a need to fake the RADES data as to the path of the C-130?