Challenge to CIT

[The Big Dog]

If the "wittnesses" are all lying/incorrect then why doesn't the US government release the 85+ videos they confiscated which would clearly clarify the plane's flight path?

Take your time and think before answering.

Hey, Dom! Welcome back. Say, you've been talking a whole lot of smack elsewhere, but enough about that, I'm pleased to see that a representative of the CIT is back participating on JREF!

I'd love to respond to your inquiry, but I'm not sure i know what you are talking about; can you source it?

Thanks, in the meantime, can you respond to the 100's of questions in this thread? Also, can you tell us who was correct: Waldo, who he put Morin between the wings of the Annex, or Craig/SPreston who put him in the parking lot?

Man, I'd have loved to be a fly on the wall when the CIT was accusing each other of being Disinfo government shills!!

Take your time and think before answering.

 

[Par]

If the "wittnesses" are all lying/incorrect then why doesn't the US government release the 85+ videos they confiscated which would clearly clarify the plane's flight path?

What an extremely dishonest thing to ask. It was presented as a single question, but really it consists of two claims and one question:

• [Uruk] is claiming that the witnesses are all lying/incorrect.
• The United States government is holding more than eighty-five videos which clearly show the plane's flight path.
• Why haven’t these videos been released?

The two claims are false, and so the question is meaningless.

 

[beachnut]

If the "wittnesses" are all lying/incorrect then why doesn't the US government release the 85+ videos they confiscated which would clearly clarify the plane's flight path?

Take your time and think before answering.

lol, you guys have a special team to move the goal posts?

11.2 Gs; got physics?

Do you CIT people listen to your own stuff? You debunk your own non-paths, and non-stories, and non-theories. You got tons of non non.

Does this post really mean you will never correct the 11.2 G error that p4t core super pilots are working on for over a month? got math? physics? evidence?

 

[uruk]

If the "wittnesses" are all lying/incorrect then why doesn't the US government release the 85+ videos they confiscated which would clearly clarify the plane's flight path?

Take your time and think before answering.

What 85+ videos and has anyone tried the foia?

 

[Bobert]

And BTW Dom dont you crack CIT boys have anything better to do with your time then to post about JREF'ers not using their JREF names?
LOL Craig has used MANY DIFFERENT names on MANY DIFFERENT boards so pot meet kettle.
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/233015/1/#new

 

[TC329]

What 85+ videos and has anyone tried the foia?

Thanks for further showing you duh-bunk a topic you are completely ignorant about.

 

[The Big Dog]

Thanks for further showing you duh-bunk a topic you are completely ignorant about.

"Duh-bunk"? Stay classy CIT.

Anyhow, we are committed to answering you question, just give us an explanation of what you mean, and sources!

Thanks!

ETA: Oops, we have seemingly strayed from the original intent of this thread, where you were given the opportunity to explain the math, facts and science behind the CIT's theory. You have not done it yet, and are derailing the thread.... So, start your own thread there, MC.

 

[TC329]

It looks like you’re trying to change the subject! (If you wish to claim that evidence was planted, then by all means present you evidence for the same.)

Corroborated eyewitness accounts place the plane in a place where lightpoles could not be knocked down by said plane. Thus this is evidence that the lightpoles were staged.

Eyewitnesses that CIT managed to contact and interview that were referenced in the paper as having seen this event take place have acknowledged on film that they did not see it. This includes Father McGraw & Joel Sucherman.

These 2 can be added to the names of people who watched the plane come in over the Navy Annex to the North side of the Citgo station where it never hit any light poles before the plane ____________ (I don't care at this point).

People who watched "AA77" approach and "impact" the Pentagon and never saw it strike any lightpoles :

Joel Sucherman
Mike Walter
Father McGraw
Robert Turcios
William LaGasse
Chad Brooks
Sean Boger
Levi Stephens

So there's 8 of them. Now comes the part you explain how all 8 of them forgot this because seeing a 757 flying close to the ground tearing lightpoles out and throwing them about isn't an event that someone would recall.

 

[uruk]

Thanks for further showing you duh-bunk a topic you are completely ignorant about.

So then you don't know what 85+ videos either?

Do you know for a fact that they show the plane's path? Have you seen them?
Were the cameras facing in the direction of the plane's approach? Where were the cameras located?

 

[DGM]

Thanks for further showing you duh-bunk a topic you are completely ignorant about.

Are you implying that the FBI has 85 tapes that would "clearly clarify the plane's flight path"?

You know this how? Talk about ignorant.

 

[beachnut]

Thanks for further showing you duh-bunk a topic you are completely ignorant about.

Are you and CIT really lacking knowledge on 9/11 so badly you have no clue what is going on?

Why has p4t not corrected the 11.2 g error with all the help from the crack research team, CIT?

I mean with all those expert pilots, what do they need a crack research team like, CIT?

Did you have another non-path idea for today? How many false/non-paths have you had so far?

Do you need help with some geometry terms like parallel?

Why not use the work done right here to correct p4t errors?

 

[Par]

Thanks for further showing you duh-bunk a topic you are completely ignorant about.

You claimed that the United States government is holding more than eighty-five videos which clearly show the plane's flight path. Please provide some evidence for this. (You can even link to that letter, if you like.)

 

[TC329]

Hey, Dom! Welcome back. Say, you've been talking a whole lot of smack elsewhere, but enough about that, I'm pleased to see that a representative of the CIT is back participating on JREF!

Hi ________ ummmmmm I don't know your name, what was it again?
Thanks for the warm welcome!

I'd love to respond to your inquiry, but I'm not sure i know what you are talking about; can you source it?

All the surveillance cameras taken after the 9/11 attacks. The cameras mounted on top of the Pentagon facing outward that clearly would have captured AA77 on it's flight path. Do you need to see pictures of the Pentagon to believe me that the place has more than it's fair share of cameras or do you believe the military HQ of the worlds greatest military doesn't/didn't have simple surveillance cameras in 2001?

Also refer back to the AP on 9/12/2001 who wrote about hotel employees at the Sheraton who watched the attack "several times in shock" before FBI confiscated the video. 4 years later in 2005 the FBI would say no such video exists.

Of course I know how this all works because I'm still waiting to see the 12+ videos of the OKC95 attack.

Thanks, in the meantime, can you respond to the 100's of questions in this thread?

Yeah don't really have all that time to waste. Half the members here are on my ignore list anyways. Sorry.

Also, can you tell us who was correct: Waldo, who he put Morin between the wings of the Annex, or Craig/SPreston who put him in the parking lot?

I'm sorry, I don't know any Waldo's.

Man, I'd have loved to be a fly on the wall when the CIT was accusing each other of being Disinfo government shills!!

Really? Where did this take place? I wasn't invited.

Take your time and think before answering.

Oh yes because this was so challenging!

 

[beachnut]

People who watched "AA77" approach and "impact" the Pentagon and never saw it strike any lightpoles :

Joel Sucherman
Mike Walter
Father McGraw
Robert Turcios
William LaGasse
Chad Brooks
Sean Boger
Levi Stephens

So there's 8 of them. Now comes the part you explain how all 8 of them forgot this because seeing a 757 flying close to the ground tearing lightpoles out and throwing them about isn't an event that someone would recall.

They all saw 77 hit the Pentagon. Good job, finally you have debunked that non-theory of over flight pull up garbage fantasy junk.

The best part is Morin saw 77 go right by the Annex and right through to the Pentagon, as it knocked down the lamp posts. And Boger picks it up as Morin can barely see the tail. This is cool how you debunk yourself without even a clue. So, Paik points on video directly to the Pentagon as 77 passes him, to Morin, to Boger. Debunking your fly over.

Cool. You guys should review your stuff, cause I can prove the actual lamp post knocking path with your failed attempt at making up false ideas. You have been debunked the usual 9/11 truth way, by your own work.

 

[TC329]

So then you don't know what 85+ videos either?

Other than knowing they exist you are correct.

Do you know for a fact that they show the plane's path?

Out of 85 possibilities I would say the odds that a 155' long 757 not being captured on film somewhere by them would be astronomical.

Have you seen them?

No, see I'm not allowed and neither are you. So we just have to trust people we don't know to believe there isn't anything on them that they don't say. I love this whole have blind faith in your government thingy. Reminds me of late 1930's Germany.

Were the cameras facing in the direction of the plane's approach?

Clearly many were. Have you ever been to the Pentagon?

Where were the cameras located?

I guess this question answers my previous question.

 

[TC329]

They all saw 77 hit the Pentagon. Good job, finally you have debunked that non-theory of over flight pull up garbage fantasy junk.

The best part is Morin saw 77 go right by the Annex and right through to the Pentagon, as it knocked down the lamp posts. And Boger picks it up as Morin can barely see the tail. This is cool how you debunk yourself without even a clue. So, Paik points on video directly to the Pentagon as 77 passes him, to Morin, to Boger. Debunking your fly over.

Cool. You guys should review your stuff, cause I can prove the actual lamp post knocking path with your failed attempt at making up false ideas. You have been debunked the usual 9/11 truth way, by your own work.

I'm sorry "Beachnut" (perhaps you will stop lying so much if you actually attach your name to your words) but Boger says the plane flew over the Navy Annex to the North side of the Citgo station and that he didn't see it hit any light poles.

I didn't include Morin in my list because he clearly wasn't in a position to see light poles get hit. Your claim that he saw this is assanine.

Maybe when you attach your real name to your lies you will gain some credibility in my eyes. In the meantime you are an anonymous troll peddling disinfo on many websites.

 

[The Big Dog]

No problem, Dom! You can just call me 16.5! It is the name I use on this site.

We asked for sources, we get rhetoric and dodging. Sigh. (I do get a kick out of your expectation that the freaking Pentagon should release its security videos to the CIT: a/k/a The Gang that Can't Get its Story Straight!)

So, you are not going to tell me where Morin was? Anyhow, CIT: the OP:

"A map of the flight path depicting ANY aircraft that reasonably meets YOUR witnesses descriptions flying a path from overhead Edward Paik's business to a position North of the Citgo Station and then directly to the impact point at the Pentagon.

Your diagram should include speed, headings, bank angles, G's (both lateral and vertical), estimated altitude and pull up point to overfly the Pentagon.

Take your time and think before answering.

 

[TC329]

You claimed that the United States government is holding more than eighty-five videos which clearly show the plane's flight path. Please provide some evidence for this. (You can even link to that letter, if you like.)

I never said all 85 show the flight path Dr. Spin. The odds though of 80+ videos in a small compressed area all missing a 757 flying around are not in your favor.

 

[Par]

Corroborated eyewitness accounts place the plane in a place where lightpoles could not be knocked down by said plane. Thus this is evidence that the lightpoles were staged.

Eyewitnesses that CIT managed to contact and interview that were referenced in the paper as having seen this event take place have acknowledged on film that they did not see it. This includes Father McGraw & Joel Sucherman.

These 2 can be added to the names of people who watched the plane come in over the Navy Annex to the North side of the Citgo station where it never hit any light poles before the plane ____________ (I don't care at this point).

People who watched "AA77" approach and "impact" the Pentagon and never saw it strike any lightpoles :

Joel Sucherman
Mike Walter
Father McGraw
Robert Turcios
William LaGasse
Chad Brooks
Sean Boger
Levi Stephens

So there's 8 of them. Now comes the part you explain how all 8 of them forgot this because seeing a 757 flying close to the ground tearing lightpoles out and throwing them about isn't an event that someone would recall.

Please provide some evidence of these “corroborated eyewitness accounts”.

Someone having been reported to have witnessed an event when they actually didn’t witness that event – even if that is what they said – in no way suggests that the event in question involved the planting of evidence. Why would it?

“These two” can be added to what names, and why should we prefer thier testimony to that of those who contradict it?

People having seen the plane approach but not hit any light poles in no way suggests that it didn’t, in fact, hit any light poles. (It’s quite possible that they simply witnessed the former, but not the latter.)

 

[uruk]

Corroborated eyewitness accounts place the plane in a place where lightpoles could not be knocked down by said plane. Thus this is evidence that the lightpoles were staged.

And we all know how accurate eyewittness accounts are considering that you are ignoring an important corroberated part of thier testimony.

Eyewitnesses that CIT managed to contact and interview that were referenced in the paper as having seen this event take place have acknowledged on film that they did not see it. This includes Father McGraw & Joel Sucherman.

Which goes to show how inaccurate eyewittness accounts can be.

These 2 can be added to the names of people who watched the plane come in over the Navy Annex to the North side of the Citgo station where it never hit any light poles before the plane ____________ (I don't care at this point).

So you are begining to see just how much a double edge sword your reliance on "corroberated" testimony is.

People who watched "AA77" approach and "impact" the Pentagon and never saw it strike any lightpoles :

Joel Sucherman
Mike Walter
Father McGraw
Robert Turcios
William LaGasse
Chad Brooks
Sean Boger
Levi Stephens


So there's 8 of them. Now comes the part you explain how all 8 of them forgot this because seeing a 757 flying close to the ground tearing lightpoles out and throwing them about isn't an event that someone would recall.

Who knows what else they didn't notice about the events they wittnessed. The human mind is very fickle and unpredictable.So that's 8 on top of all the others who saw the plane impact the Pentagon. That's like how many corroberation?

So they didn't notice the light pole being knocked over. There were others who did. You have a guy over there at LCF who made a rather long series of posts trying to explain away some of those wittnesses recollections. I haven't read them all yet but I have some issues that I hope to address soon over there. But so far his attempts is an a shinning example of how innaccurate human memory is.