Challenge to CIT

[uruk]

Oh ok, so then it would only have captured the 757 slamming into the building is what you're saying?

I also love the theory the government and their sympathisers put out that the cameras don't record and are just live. Yes of course, the HQ of the mightiest military in the world wouldn't want to record any events that might happen which could be a security issue. Now why would they want to do that?

Yet everyplace I have worked for the last 10 years (all under constant surveillance at multiple facilities) has all the footage logged and recorded and stored.

Every tech business in western Pa, but not the HQ of the mightiest military in the world. What a joke. You lemmings swallow anything big brother spoon feeds you.

"Sketpics".....LMMFAO!!!!

Seriously, How much space do you think all those videos would take up digitaly or otherwise from 80 + cameras recording 24/7/365?
Why would the Pentagon or any other organization keep and store volumes of videos of people milling about the parking lot and building? Do you seriously think the Pentagon has stored somewhere video of the north parking lot from 1965?

Where did all those places you worked for store those videos? How long do they keep the videos?

I work at a place where there are surveliance cameras where the video is stored digitaly.
They usualy dump the video after a specified period. Three months I think, but I can find out.

There is no reason to keep it if it does not show anything unusual

 

[uruk]

First, which wittnesses are you talking about? CIT's wittnesses or ALL the witnesses?
Cit's witnesses are not "all" the witnesses.

If you are talking about "all" the witnesses then:

None of the witnesses said it flew over.

Right

None of the witnesses said it hit light poles.

Wrong!

All of the witnesses said it was over the navy annex and/or on the NoC.

Wrong again.

 

[Cobalt]

First, which wittnesses are you talking about? CIT's wittnesses or ALL the witnesses?
Cit's witnesses are not "all" the witnesses.

If you are talking about "all" the witnesses then:
Right
Wrong!
Wrong again.

A lot of that pointed out over here.

 

[uruk]

Thanks!

 

[Cobalt]

Anytime.

 

[celestrin]

Emphasis mine.

He's not telling what he saw. Therefor he is not lying but stating what he believes to be true.

Yes, and we all know what you elite researchers believe. This is why it's important that you answer questions such as these from a few weeks ago.

How do you [...] determine whether some of your witnesses are just leading you on? How do you know whether a whole team of planted witnesses was sent out to discredit you? And especially - how do you separate those who actually manage to tell it like it really happened, and those who are adamant their memory is correct, but don't really remember it right? How do you separate a real memory from a false memory? Do you have anything more substantial than gut feelings?

Where do you turn to, to separate real memories from false ones?

So far, you've only managed to turn to other (cherrypicked) witnesses, therefore other real or false memories. Where does the cycle end?

And not to further derail this thread, what do you say about the physical characteristics of "your" flight path? The way you had devised it from real or false memories of your witnesses - is it physically possible? Plausible? Does it fit with all your witness' accounts?

 

[Reheat]

CIT has given up their flyover theory!

I'm pleased to have the honor of an astounding announcement. CIT has announced that they DO NOT promote a flyover theory.

....Because we don't promote a "flyover theory". We promote evidence that proves the plane could not have hit the building or the light poles. .....

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/214463/7/

Well, I didn't believe it would be this easy, but you can read as well as I can. Or is pfffft is giving lessons on how to promote 911 twoof tripe and not be put in a position to have to defend it?

So, what is the theory then Aldo? What is the theory of " The Pentagon Flyover How They Pulled It Off"? When and how did you "prove" the plane could not have hit the building or the light poles? Have I missed something important? Sorry, all I've seen are some conflicting and "cherry picked" witness statements gathered years after the event that CIT has misinterpreted to support a predetermined conclusion. Do you have more?

If not a flyover theory is it that AA77 is levitating North of the Citgo? Sorry, to inform you that AA77's debris, the remains of passengers and crew to include some of their personal belongings, and the remains of many people who were working in the Pentagon, were all found inside and around the Pentagon over 7 1/2 years ago. The horrific memories and pain from injuries suffered by people who survived or were affected by those events are a living memory to all of them.

The FACT is that your North of Citgo and subsequent non theory of a flyover is a PROVEN falsehood formulated by CIT to support your InSiDe JoB delusions. You HAVE NOT and CAN NOT prove your imaginary theory ????? is even aerodynamically possible as your witnesses said they saw it. If it is not aerodynamically possible as the witnesses described it DID NOT HAPPEN.



CIT IS FINISHED

 

[celestrin]

I think WAldwin only made that comment because of Robbie's Impossible Obstacle Flightpath calculations. He probably still thinks the pull up plane needs 11g to just arrest the descent. He has probably just realized that the same, if not much worse, must also apply for their flyover plane. Wait till he figures out Mackey's work and how it reduces the required gs. They'll be flying over the Pentagon again, in no time whatsoever... Probably some time late fall... 2010... :evilgrin:

 

[SpitfireIX]

CIT IS FINISHED

Just as surely as Martin Sheen at the end of The Dead Zone.

[disclaimer]

1. WARNING: The following clip contains SPOILERS for the ending of the movie The Dead Zone.

2. The following clip contains images of violence and suicide.

3. The following clip is not meant to be construed as inciting, advocating, suggesting, or condoning violence or suicide against or by any person or persons.

[/disclaimer]

 

[The Big Dog]

Reheat:

Congratulations! And to Sevon over at LC. It is clear that all you have to do is ask a few sensible questions and CIT's ridiculous theory folds like a house of cards.

Did you see Aldo's petulant non-response after being called on his "CIT does not advocate flyover." Aldo said: "Well it is not a theory as you put it. I am not going to debate semantics with you, Jason/Nicepants."

Unbelievable! STUNDIED!

It is notable that the other dupes at the LC board do not appear to realize that CIT are complete fantasists, completely unable to support or even explain their "theory."

 

[TjW]

It seems to me there's a non-mathematical argument that kills the CIT flight path(s).
Bank angle is proportional to speed and turn radius.
Whatever speed the airplane was going, it was observed that the bank angle was around 45 degrees on the descending 270 degree turn.
The radius of that turn was larger than the radius of the turn required by CIT, therefore the turn required by CIT would have a higher bank angle.
Slowing the airplane from high speed would have made it climb.

 

[uruk]

Well it looks like I was banned from one particular thread at LCF. Ironic since I think the thread was point at me amoung others who were questioned about the poles.

I did not engage any ad hominins or personal attacks nor did I break any forum rules. But apparently disagreeing with Craig was enough to do it.
It seems Craig only wants "research" to be conducted on his thrread. Apparently research on the forum consists of hid cronies patting themselves on thier back.

Oh well.

 

[uruk]

Apparently I've been banned from all but one section.

 

[Par]

LOL

So, you were caught lying and you cannot defend yourself.

 

[A W Smith]

Apparently I've been banned from all but one section.

They don't take kindly to being made fools of in their own forum. When shown that they cannot even support a flight path or now even a flyover. Craig could not support his arguments and had you banned out of his little sandbox claiming it was a forum for "research" not "skeptics". Funny how when shown their own research and their own witness testimony that conflicts with their agenda they have to close the forum to all "skeptics' not just you. JFK is doing the "'Craig, Can you top this, I was IP banned before registering" claiming he was IP banned here just for browsing JREF. Get over yourself JFK your not that important or bright for that matter. JFK Simply admit you are a panty waist coward who has no balls to police his own forum and are afraid to register here. And we can Expect more animated gif postings by agenda driven SPreston just like on a 14 year olds girly girl myspace page.

 

[1337m4n]

I love how CIT attacks YOU and YOU get banned for "instigating".

What hypocrites LCF's mods are.

 

[TC329]

Seriously, How much space do you think all those videos would take up digitaly or otherwise from 80 + cameras recording 24/7/365?

What you think they keep all this on VHS or DVD? LOL

Why would the Pentagon or any other organization keep and store volumes of videos of people milling about the parking lot and building?

Sometimes when crimes are committed they are not recognized til long after the fact.

Do you seriously think the Pentagon has stored somewhere video of the north parking lot from 1965?

What did I say to give that impression? I would expect them to still have ones from that morning though considering the significance of it. But here I go using critical thinking again to come to logical conclusions.

Where did all those places you worked for store those videos? How long do they keep the videos?

Once a week they were picked up by Iron Mountain and taken to the Iron Mountain storage facility. Quite common for most bigger corporations here in Pittsburgh.

I work at a place where there are surveliance cameras where the video is stored digitaly.
They usualy dump the video after a specified period. Three months I think, but I can find out.

So if someone flew a plane into your building at work the security cameras would capture it is what you sayin?

There is no reason to keep it if it does not show anything unusual

And all the video feeds from around the pentagon on 9/11 wouldn't have caught anything "unusual" now would they?

 

[Mr.Herbert]

Where's Aldo??

Originally Posted by Aldo @ LCF
....Because we don't promote a "flyover theory". We promote evidence that proves the plane could not have hit the building or the light poles. .....

Then he states this:
​

Originally Posted by Aldo @ LCF
CIT presents evidence that leads to one of two possible conclusions :

1)A plane flew over the Navy Annex to the North side of the Citgo station and over the Pentagon.

2) A plane flew over the Navy Annex to the North side of the Citgo station and into the Pentagon.


.........

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=65403&t=214463

 

[TheRedWorm]

Don't twist my words. I did not say not a single witness saw a flyover.

You asked how many (interviewed by CIT) said the plane flew over. To that I said none of them.

Yes, and when I responded, it was implied that I was still talking about your witnesses, not the entire body of witnesses on 9/11. The fault I guess, is mine for not being more clear, and for that I apologize.

How do you even live with yourself when you twist and distort what people say like this? Does it make you feel more clever in front of your friends?

My friends? I doubt any one on here actually likes me, more like they tolerate my existence for the time being. But that is not the topic, the topic is; how many of your witnesses saw the plane hit the Pentagon? Pleases answer the question, if you don't mind.

bump

 

[The Big Dog]

What you think they keep all this on VHS or DVD? LOL

Wait, the CIT is STILL going on about videos while their fantasy is crumbling around them?

Having faced the fact that no math can possibly save them, they have now abandoned the flyover theory.

Even the sheep at LC are shortly going to recognize that the CIT is completely incompetent, and ban the CIT just like the old LC board did.

And TC is back, asking about security video? WHY? Shouldn't you go back to the CIT clubhouse and figure out what you are going to do now that your flyover theory is completely busted?