Army Center for Military History FOIA Complete

[TheLoneBedouin]

Yet none of these people go on record supporting the conclusions of the CIT. Why is this? You deduce from what you decide is their point of view. None saw the fly-over yet they should have, right?

Since CIT's "conclusions" amount to them simply believing their unanimous placement of the plane on the north side it's clear that all of the witnesses are on record supporting this.

Many of the ANC witnesses admit to "running in the opposite direction" for their lives and therefore specifically not worrying if the plane "was going to hit the building or not hit the building" so no.

There is no reason to suggest they would see a flyover during this.

And obviously the fireball would also serve as an incredible diversion to this for many.

You arbitrarily claiming that they "should" have seen a flyover is subective speculation just as you assuming that they saw an impact when most admitted they merely deduced it.

There is nothing subjective or speculative about the FACT that they all saw the plane on the north side.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Jhunter,

Read the thread! That table is not CIT's.

 

[Bobert]

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

Why do you waste so much of your time posting here?
Why does Aldo devote COUNTLESS THREADS over at the CIT forum devoted to how much he hates JREF?
Why does Craig devote COUNTLESS THREADS at several forums obsessing on his detractors?
Why are you so obsessed with 911 Files?
After answering all of this please answer this:
WHY DO MOST ALL THE CIT WITNESSES SAY THAT FLIGHT 77 HiT THE PENTAGON?

 

[Bobert]

I don't recall CIT making such a list nor do I recall any "SoC" witnesses.

I suggest you take this up with them direct at their forum since you are a member.

Why do you keep repeating yourself that he is a member of the CIT forum?
Do you think that if the super secret JREF NWO subforum finds out then he will get a demotion?
Dont worry dude we have in sooo deep that you wont see it coming!
Keep in mind we have others that are in even deeper and they are just a phone call away so dont do anything funny there mister!

 

[jhunter1163]

TLB:

Fair point. That chart is not a CIT product. The list I linked in #139 is though, and it has similar commentary from Aldo.

However, CIT certainly doesn't have a problem with labeling people as shills, disinfo, etc. The demonization of Lloyde England comes to mind. And all he did was nearly get killed by a light pole flying through his windshield.

 

[R.Mackey]

MOST of the 13 north side witnesses could not see the alleged impact point at all due to topography and landscape.

The fact that they DEDUCED an impact does not refute the fact that they SAW the plane on the north side.

Here is the confirmed north side witness list to date:

1. Ed Paik.......could not see Pentagon or alleged impact point at all.
2. Terry Morin....could not see alleged impact point at all.
3. William Middleton.....could not see alleged impact point at all.
4. George Aman.....could not see alleged impact point at all.
5. Darrell Stafford......could not see alleged impact point at all.
6. Darius Prather......could not see alleged impact point at all.
7. Donald Carter......could not see alleged impact point at all.
8. Robert Turcios.....specifically claimed that he DID NOT see the plane hit and only remembers the fireball.
9. Sgt Brooks.....Admitted after seeing The PentaCon that it's possible he could have been fooled about the impact but stands by the north side approach.
10. Sgt Lagasse....Admitted that he jumped into his car out of a "fear" after plane flew by on the north side.
11. Levi Stephens....Admitted that he was facing the opposite way towards Crystal City.
12. Maria De La Cerda......could not see alleged impact point at all and thought the plane crashed on "the other side" or "on top" of the building indicating flyover.
13 Sean Boger....This is the only north side witness who definitively claims that he watched the plane enter the building but since all the other witnesses confirm his north side claim and a north side impact is impossible the logical conclusion is that he innocently embellished the impact details.

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but the above is simply astonishing to me.

What TheLoneBedouin is claiming is, in fact, that the witnesses he pins his entire story on -- all of them, except for Sean Boger -- had a very poor view of the event in question. Even in their bizarre hypothesis the mystery aircraft drew perilously close to the "alleged impact point," but apparently 12 out of 13 were in no position to see this at all. That's quite a coincidence. I would even speculate that their poor view of the event may be correlated with other anomalies in their recollections, viz. the approaching flight path.

Amazingly, this is not perceived as a problem. A rational investigator would, naturally, look for better witnesses, or at the very least discount these reports as flawed. However, in the topsy-turvy world of the conspiracy addled, this is actually a strength -- their inability to see anything at the point of impact leaves the door open for fantastic claims, i.e. no impact at all.

This is just another item to add to the long list of problems with their hypothesis. To TheLoneBedouin, if you want to attempt to make some kind of sense of the Citizens's Investigation Team's claims, I compiled that list for your review long ago. Nobody's dared to touch it for some reason.

ETA: Oh, and I should add -- the 1 out of the 13 witnesses who could see the plane impact, states that it did. Whereupon these guys say he is wrong, imagining, fabricating, whatever. Just astonishing.

 

[T.A.M.]

It is not astonishing to me, as the ridiculousness of the source (CIT) matches the ridiculousness of the claims.

TAM

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but the above is simply astonishing to me.

What TheLoneBedouin is claiming is, in fact, that the witnesses he pins his entire story on -- all of them, except for Sean Boger -- had a very poor view of the event in question. Even in their bizarre hypothesis the mystery aircraft drew perilously close to the "alleged impact point," but apparently 12 out of 13 were in no position to see this at all. That's quite a coincidence. I would even speculate that their poor view of the event may be correlated with other anomalies in their recollections, viz. the approaching flight path.

Quite a coincidence? Did it never occur to you that the Pentagon was specifically chosen for its unique topography?
Your speculations are meaningless. I can provide evidence that they all had excellent views of the flightpath- particularly Boger who was staring right at the Citgo. That you can just deny all of this evidence as a "coincidence" places you firmly in the pseudoskeptic camp, Mackey.

This is just another item to add to the long list of problems with their hypothesis. To TheLoneBedouin, if you want to attempt to make some kind of sense of the Citizens's Investigation Team's claims, I compiled that list for your review long ago. Nobody's dared to touch it for some reason.

I have answered all of those questions in the "Why fake the SOC path?" thread, except for the FDR. Why would the FDR contradict the official story? Who knows? Perhaps it was a mistake? Perhaps it was deliberately planted to further confuse the issue. None of these speculative questions refute the evidence, and all of them are answered in CIT's presentations. That you are "reasonable sure" about the hypothesis without viewing the evidence again places you firmly in the pseudoskeptic camp.

ETA: Oh, and I should add -- the 1 out of the 13 witnesses who could see the plane impact, states that it did. Whereupon these guys say he is wrong, imagining, fabricating, whatever. Just astonishing.

You're ignoring the fact that Boger sees the plane bank to the right from over the Navy Annex. There is no explanation for why he would see a bank at all, as all the other witnesses confirm, if the plane was on the official path. He also vehemently argues that the security camera footage is wrong and that the plane was actually at a much higher altitude. If the plane flew over the South Parking Lot to the right of the explosion, Boger could have easily deduced an impact because it would appear that the plane disappeared into the explosion from his position.
You're also ignoring flyover witness Roosevelt Roberts and the newly released CMH flyover witnesses as well.

 

[dtugg]

Hey TLB, at last count how many flyover witnesses do you have?

 

[R.Mackey]

Quite a coincidence? Did it never occur to you that the Pentagon was specifically chosen for its unique topography?
Your speculations are meaningless. I can provide evidence that they all had excellent views of the flightpath- particularly Boger who was staring right at the Citgo. That you can just deny all of this evidence as a "coincidence" places you firmly in the pseudoskeptic camp, Mackey.

What? You just contradicted yourself. Your list says that, of all of them, only Boger could actually see the point of impact. According to you, the "mystery plane" went very close to the point of impact, ergo, they didn't have "excellent views of the flightpath."

You can't call me a "pseudoskeptic" just because you're confused.

I have answered all of those questions in the "Why fake the SOC path?" thread, except for the FDR. Why would the FDR contradict the official story? Who knows? Perhaps it was a mistake? Perhaps it was deliberately planted to further confuse the issue. None of these speculative questions refute the evidence, and all of them are answered in CIT's presentations. That you are "reasonable sure" about the hypothesis without viewing the evidence again places you firmly in the pseudoskeptic camp.

I must have missed those answers, since -- even leaving out the FDR -- they would be truly remarkable. A link or summary would be appreciated, although I suspect you didn't answer them at all.

 

[bje]

Will you cut it with the lame circular logic.

The north side claim and the impact are mutually exclusive.

MOST of the 13 north side witnesses could not see the alleged impact point at all due to topography and landscape.

So, obviously, they could not be eyewitnesses to any "flyover."

The fact that they DEDUCED an impact does not refute the fact that they SAW the plane on the north side.

You just confessed they could not have witnessed a flyover. Since there are, in fact, NO witnesses to a flyover and ALL of the evidence confirms irrefutably that AA77 hit the Pentagon, you're still up a tree.

Of course, CR, you are unable to respond to facts, as always.

 

[dtugg]

I must have missed those answers, since -- even leaving out the FDR -- they would be truly remarkable. A link or summary would be appreciated, although I suspect you didn't answer them at all.

His "answer" to the question of why they the faked the SoC path but flew NoC: They had to have the flyover jet fly on a totally different path from the faked path so any witnesses would be able to write it off as the "second jet" described by "deceptive media reports." They did this even though it contained all the evidence necessary for geniuses like TLB for prove the official story false because covering up the flyover was of supreme importance.

I am not joking. This is what he says. I said I would kill myself if a rational answer was given. Somehow, I didn't feel compelled to follow through.

 

[R.Mackey]

His "answer" to the question of why they the faked the SoC path but flew NoC: They had to have the flyover jet fly on a totally different path from the faked path so any witnesses would be able to write it off as the "second jet" described by "deceptive media reports." They did this even though it contained all the evidence necessary for geniuses like TLB for prove the official story false because covering up the flyover was of supreme importance.

Good grief.

I'll wait for him to confirm, but needless to say, that's no answer at all. That is, instead, yet another line for the list of problems.

 

[bonavada]

It is not astonishing to me, as the ridiculousness of the source (CIT) matches the ridiculousness of the claims.
TAM

The ridicule is well deserved.
I really can hardly get passed the fact that eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable and has been proven so by experts in many fields.
IIRC, in the UK eyewitness testimony alone is insufficent for a criminal conviction, it must be backed-up with further convincing forensic evidence. UK legislation was changed I think, after one-too-many cases of wrongful conviction using eyewitnesses as the primary source of evidence.

Eyewitness evidence is inherently fallible.

I would suggest that the multitude of contradictory statements amongst all the Pentagon witnesses goes to support the erroneous nature of eyewitness evidence and the "work" produced by the intrepid hacks at CIT confirms it.

BV

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

What? You just contradicted yourself. Your list says that, of all of them, only Boger could actually see the point of impact. According to you, the "mystery plane" went very close to the point of impact, ergo, they didn't have "excellent views of the flightpath."

Your speculation that becuase they didn't have a good view of the "impact", they didn't have a good view of the flightpath preceding the "impact" is clearly illogical.

I must have missed those answers, since -- even leaving out the FDR -- they would be truly remarkable. A link or summary would be appreciated, although I suspect you didn't answer them at all.

This post about the NOC path vs. the impact and this post about the rationale for faking the SOC path, answer all of your questions.

All of these basic questions are answered in CIT's presentation, and since you are criticizing them without viewing the evidence, you are by definition a pseudoskpetic.

 

[R.Mackey]

Your speculation that becuase they didn't have a good view of the "impact", they didn't have a good view of the flightpath preceding the "impact" is clearly illogical.

Who's speculating? You said that most of them had no clear view, and others were ducking or facing the wrong direction. I'm not making up a thing, I'm going by what you posted above.

This post about the NOC path vs. the impact and this post about the rationale for faking the SOC path, answer all of your questions.

All of these basic questions are answered in CIT's presentation, and since you are criticizing them without viewing the evidence, you are by definition a pseudoskpetic.

I just read through both of those posts, and I don't see how they even peripherally address a single one of the issues I raised. Please explain. And try to back off the gratuitous and utterly incorrect insults.

 

[bje]

The ridicule is well deserved.
I really can hardly get passed the fact that eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable and has been proven so by experts in many fields.
IIRC, in the UK eyewitness testimony alone is insufficent for a criminal conviction, it must be backed-up with further convincing forensic evidence. UK legislation was changed I think, after one-too-many cases of wrongful conviction using eyewitnesses as the primary source of evidence.

Eyewitness evidence is inherently fallible.

I would suggest that the multitude of contradictory statements amongst all the Pentagon witnesses goes to support the erroneous nature of eyewitness evidence and the "work" produced by the intrepid hacks at CIT confirms it.

BV

Eyewitness testimony, even with the variability between accounts, is either consistent with all of the other evidence, inconclusive, or contradictory.

TLB can't reconcile a NoC flight path with all of the other evidence available to all of us. He fails miserably.

We need to ignore TLB and his tripe once and for all.

 

[T.A.M.]

Who's speculating? You said that most of them had no clear view, and others were ducking or facing the wrong direction. I'm not making up a thing, I'm going by what you posted above.



I just read through both of those posts, and I don't see how they even peripherally address a single one of the issues I raised. Please explain. And try to back off the gratuitous and utterly incorrect insults.

But Mackey, remember the CIT creed:

Witnesses are ONLY reliable, when their testimony SUPPORTS the NoC path.

TAM

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Mackey,

It's amazing to me that I have to explain this to you and as I said it simply demonstrates that you have not even bothered to viewed the evidence you are attempting to refute.

The Pentagon is in a topographical bowl and this fact added with the surrounding landscape leaves very few places where people would have a clear view of the alleged impact point.

But all of the 13 NoC witnesses were in THE MOST critical areas to view the final moment of the flight path as the plane passed the citgo station.

The citgo is a critical landmark that definitively determines if the plane was on course to cause the physical damage starting with the downed light poles.

Here are the 5 critical vantage points represented (plus the unlabeled sixth perspective of Levi, who was near the South Parking Lot):

Now here is what ALL of these critical witnesses reported:

So it's unanimous.

THERE ARE NO BETTER VANTAGE POINTS TO DETERMINE THE FLIGHT PATH IN RELATION TO THE CITGO WHICH IS THE FINAL AND MOST SIGNIFICANT LANDMARK TO DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF THE PLANE AT THAT CRITICAL MOMENT.

People from ALL surrounding perspectives in a position to tell unanimously agree it was BANKING on the north side of the gas station.

The fact that most could not see the alleged impact point due to the complex topography and landscape does not change this. This is merely a circumstance that helped facilitate the deception.

 

[HyJinX]

Given the physical evidence, the lamposts and lloyd Englands car...I go with the NTSB flightpath. Thanks for playing though.