Army Center for Military History FOIA Complete

[BCR]

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!

I don't know what is on these videos. There is no synopsis for them and I have no timeline for expectation of release. All I know is that they have been on request for almost 2 years along with many others and stuff is showing up in my mailbox these days. Obama says things will be more transparent now, so we will just have to wait and see. I just figured I would mess with TLB

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?

To me the critical flaw in this fly-over nonsense is the intitial CNN reporting. The first reporter on the scene came in at the South Lot. Witnesses described the helicopter (which did exist by the way), but not one person mentioned seeing a plane at the time (minutes after impact). They all associated the event with the helicopter. It is rather hard for me to accept that these folks would notice the little ole helicopter, but not a 757 screaming over their heads.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

They provide evidence [...]

Eyewitness reports are the weakest possible evidence in any investigation. That CIT willfully chooses to use them as the foundation of their so-called investigation is asinine.

This is exactly what CIT provides so for you to reject this hard evidence [...]

Under absolutely no circumstances can eyewitness reports be considered "hard evidence". CIT proves this by selectively and casually rejecting parts of those reports.

You have no case.

 

[jhunter1163]

Under absolutely no circumstances can eyewitness reports be considered "hard evidence". CIT proves this by selectively and casually rejecting parts most of those reports.

You have no case.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Baylor]

One of the central tenents of good theorizing is the Rule of Parsimony. One should always prefer a simple theory to a complex one if the simple one fits the data. But it seems that CTer's need a more complex theory to fit the data. The problem comes if one tries to fit one theory to the data when the data are erroneous. You end up with a theory that explains not only the "signal," but much of the "noise" too. That's a recipe for a convoluted theory and disaster especially in a field where there is so much noise.

"Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity."

 

[bonavada]

Neit 405

Have been asking TLB about the statement of NEIT 405 on the National Geographic thread. I don't want to be seen as derailing that thread further so brought it back here.

I think I have a possible ID for this man. As any intrepid "journalist" might, I simply googled keywords and phrases (and variants of such) from his statement and one name seemed to pop up very frequently.

Strange how TLB/CIT find this exercise so difficult? Or perhaps what this man might confirm may be wholly embarrassing to NOC theorists?

Can others do the same as me and PM me with their results if any? I can then cross-check with my finding.

For obvious reasons I ask for any names not to be given here.

BV

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Strange how TLB/CIT find this exercise so difficult? Or perhaps what this man might confirm may be wholly embarrassing to NOC theorists?

Obviously the massive body of evidence CIT presents proves they are perfectly capable of locating and getting a hold of witnesses.

But I have never interviewed witnesses nor do I intend to. I prefer to read and discuss the information anonymously online. Surely there isn't a reason for you or anyone else at this forum to fault me for that.

Anyway it's great to see that one of you is finally going to actually make the effort to gather first-hand witness accounts to support your faith and/or counter the north side approach. As far as I know jhunter1163 & bje are the only other members here who boldly claimed they would take on this task but have utterly failed to provide a single interview to date while keeping utterly silent about even having said this in the past.

Even 911files hasn't provided any interviews other than a single account (that has since been deleted along with his website) from somebody too far back to even be able to see the fireball!

But keep in mind just because you think you MIGHT have found a name for this witness it doesn't mean that you have. But even if you have found the right name you don't know if you'll be able to reach him. And even if you reach him you don't know if he will talk.

Good luck!

 

[lapman]

Obviously the massive body of evidence CIT presents proves they are perfectly capable of locating and getting a hold of witnesses.

10% the eyewitnesses to the crash is considered massive?!?! You could find 13 people that will pass a polygraph test claiming that the world is flat. Does that make it so? Then you use an animation that does not state what the source of the data is as "evidence."

But I have never interviewed witnesses nor do I intend to. I prefer to read and discuss the information anonymously online. Surely there isn't a reason for you or anyone else at this forum to fault me for that.

In other words, you refuse to follow the standards that you require of us. That's interesting. You will handwave away evidence and claim that it was "provided" and/or "vetted" by the government while using "evidence" that has been proven to be manipulated by people with a money making agenda. That's rich.

 

[dtugg]

lapman, you forget that their own witnesses say that the plane hit the Pentagon. They try to explain this away by saying the witnesses were fooled by the greatest magic trick of all time and/or deceived into thinking the flyover plane was the "second jet" described by "deceptive media reports." Ranquisamo is a crazy, stupid, fraud.

 

[jhunter1163]

As far as I know jhunter1163 & bje are the only other members here who boldly claimed they would take on this task but have utterly failed to provide a single interview to date while keeping utterly silent about even having said this in the past.

I can't speak for bje, but it became apparent to me that interviews would be a waste of time, as no minds on either side of the issue would be changed, and would thus subject the interviewees to reliving a very traumatic day unnecessarily. I told you this in a PM, TLB, as well as posting it publicly, but I'll say it again.

 

[lapman]

lapman, you forget that their own witnesses say that the plane hit the Pentagon. They try to explain this away by saying the witnesses were fooled by the greatest magic trick of all time and/or deceived into thinking the flyover plane was the "second jet" described by "deceptive media reports." Ranquisamo is a crazy, stupid, fraud.

I didn't forget that. The point I'm making is that the small percentage of eyewitnesses that say something that could be twisted and molded into something that supports their fantasy is irrelevant when compared to the full body of evidence. It's just like the fact that there are people that truly believe the Earth is flat. They can present a "massive amount of evidence" to support their fantasy. Yet that doesn't make that true either.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

I can't speak for bje, but it became apparent to me that interviews would be a waste of time, as no minds on either side of the issue would be changed, and would thus subject the interviewees to reliving a very traumatic day unnecessarily.

Well that sure makes it sound real nice but obviously there is no reason you shouldn't have already had this belief before publicly announcing confidently that you would be embarking on this ambitious endeavor.

I think the deeper truth is that you knew full well there is no way you would have been able to counter the evidence provided by CIT. I think you did not want to have to admit that you made an honest effort and failed.

This is no doubt the reason why 911files and everyone else has also refused to interview any witnesses OR confront the witnesses that CIT has interviewed to get them to retract or back off the north side approach.

You already know that the north side approach will only be confirmed.

In fact Boone actually believed he was staring witness Ed Paik in the face yet STILL refused to ask him a single question about 9/11 or the flight path!

He said it's because he is "shy" which means he was afraid.

He was afraid alright. He had a deep rooted fear that and strong belief that Ed would simply confirm what he told CIT....that the plane crossed over from the south to the north side of Columbia Pike right in front of his brother Shinki's shop.

It would have been horrifying for him to have to report such a thing so he simply kept his mouth shut. Just like you did.

 

[DGM]

TLB:
Why doesn't CIT try to prove their theory by interviewing the people that collected the physical evidence that (trumps) and disproves their NOC theory? Wouldn't that be the logical progression instead of cherry picking and ignoring most of the witnesses statements they have?

 

[Bell]

I wonder how much the CIT wittnesses were lead during the interviews?

 

[jhunter1163]

I think the deeper truth is that you knew full well there is no way you would have been able to counter the evidence provided by CIT. I think you did not want to have to admit that you made an honest effort and failed.

Actually, quite the opposite is true. Nothing I provided would have shaken CIT's belief in their 13-times corroborated witnesses, no matter how unequivocal the statement the witness would have made. Be honest with yourself, TLB; Ranquis have handwaved away absolutely incontrovertible physical and radar evidence. What makes you think anything I provided that didn't agree with them would be any different?

At worst, the witness's statement(s) would have been twisted into some bizarre "confirmation" of NoC. And then the witnesses would be subjected to follow-up calls, etc. I won't play that game.

 

[bonavada]

At worst, the witness's statement(s) would have been twisted into some bizarre "confirmation" of NoC. And then the witnesses would be subjected to follow-up calls, etc. I won't play that game.

My feelings also.
I merely want to highlight the lack of logical (and scientfic) method TLB/CIT exhibit. I am not seriously considering contacting anyone myself, only showing the ease of finding ID of witnesses and the strange reluctance of TLB/CIT to follow this example. All along they trumpet their quest for "truth", it's odd, very odd.


BV

 

[lapman]

I think the deeper truth is that you knew full well there is no way you would have been able to counter the evidence provided by CIT. I think you did not want to have to admit that you made an honest effort and failed.

Wrong. The physical evidence completely counters the CIT fantasy. Period. Since you, CIT and PFT are completely unable to counter this, you hold on to your "NOC eyewitness" straw.

This is no doubt the reason why 911files and everyone else has also refused to interview any witnesses OR confront the witnesses that CIT has interviewed to get them to retract or back off the north side approach.

The blatant hypocrisy continues. Here you are making a requirement that you patently refuse to follow. Instead, you blindly accept what the known liars state as fact. Why don't you go interview the other 110 eyewitnesses and see what they say.

You already know that the north side approach will only be confirmed.

Wrong. The physical evidence conclusively proves it wrong. Your complete lack of flyover eyewitnesses prove it wrong. The multiple, independent radar tracks prove it wrong. You can claim that the government made all that up all you want. However, until you can come up with evidence to back up that allegation, you have nothing.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

At worst, the witness's statement(s) would have been twisted into some bizarre "confirmation" of NoC. And then the witnesses would be subjected to follow-up calls, etc. I won't play that game.

Sorry but you do not have a leg to stand on with all of these assumptions regarding what CIT would have done if you provided legitimate evidence.

You asked if their claims were falsifiable and they said yes so you have no right to tell them they lied about this simply because you refuse to step up to the plate and provide the evidence.

You are the only detractor/jref member who has made an effort to engage them in civil, rational discussion and you have admitted that Craig was entirely civil and rational in response to your overture.

When you both applied true critical thinking principles to the situation Craig had no problem admitting that the evidence they present is falsifiable as he has repeatedly said to many others.

You both agreed that 14 independent first-hand definitive SoC witness accounts would effectively refute the north side approach evidence presented by CIT and you confidently stated that you would make a significant effort to obtain this evidence.

So in light of the fact that you simply abandoned the effort all together you have no right to condemn CIT for doing nothing but agreeing to your terms of the challenge.

In essence what you have done is reveal how your adherence to the official story is purely faith based and how you are willing to abandon skepticism and critical thinking principles to maintain your faith.

Your claims are clearly NOT falsifiable yet CIT has openly laid out exactly how theirs are.

Even though they did this, instead of attempting to prove them wrong with independent evidence like any true skeptic would do, you simply chose to call them liars and abandon the discussion and all sense of civility all together.

You fell right back into the comfort of the immature group-think and ad hominem culture of your clique.

 

[DGM]

Sorry but you do not have a leg to stand on with all of these assumptions regarding what CIT would have done if you provided legitimate evidence.

.

The problem that you don't seem to understand is you've (CIT) have yet to show one reason why we have "no leg to stand on". Your simple assertions are not even close.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

I am not seriously considering contacting anyone myself, only showing the ease of finding ID of witnesses and the strange reluctance of TLB/CIT to follow this example.

You have demonstrated no such thing.

You have no idea if you have the right name, or if you can find that person even if you do, or if he will talk once reached.

CIT on the other hand have proved that they HAVE made this effort many times over with many witnesses.

In fact you have no clue whether or not they have already made that effort with this particular witness. You are too cowardly to even sign up at their forum and discuss the issue with them direct as jhunter did.

This is because you know that logic, reason, AND evidence is firmly in their favor when you have nothing but speculation and assumptions regarding this single account.

If you refuse to even ATTEMPT to obtain any evidence you have no business suggesting this is the case with CIT particularly when they shown many times over how this is not the case.

 

[lapman]

CIT on the other hand have proved that they HAVE made this effort many times over with many witnesses.

IIRC, CIT refuses to release any information about their interviews with any SOC eyewitnesses.