Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Cite for Sucherman stating that he saw the plane peel away from the Pentagon, please.
Dave
CIT.....Time to call it a day
- Thread starter Mr.Herbert
- Start date
Cite for Sucherman stating that he saw the plane peel away from the Pentagon, please.
Dave
Does anyone believe that there are more than about a dozen supporters of this CIT fraud?
It seems to me that there are maybe 6 or so on LCF and maybe the same on pffft.
I really doubt there are more who can not readily see the ludicrous nature of their argument.
Are we accomplishing anything by continuing to give them an outlet for this BS?
What I'm suggesting is that someone do a paper on the witness contradictions, inconsistencies, and outright fabrications and post it on the 'net. Perhaps at 911myths and then just reference the material rather than continuing to give them attention that doesn't deserve the light of day.
Is there a problem with that?
It seems to me that there are maybe 6 or so on LCF and maybe the same on pffft.
I really doubt there are more who can not readily see the ludicrous nature of their argument.
Are we accomplishing anything by continuing to give them an outlet for this BS?
What I'm suggesting is that someone do a paper on the witness contradictions, inconsistencies, and outright fabrications and post it on the 'net. Perhaps at 911myths and then just reference the material rather than continuing to give them attention that doesn't deserve the light of day.
Is there a problem with that?
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
I think such a paper would be very valuable. If you're volunteering, I think you'd do a very good job of it.
Dave
I'm happy to help. The first thing would be to establish a list of witnesses and then start documenting all first hand public records of thier statements. The witness list should include both people that CIT believe support the flyover theory, and the persons who CIT have identified as being part of a conspiracy.
NoC witnesses:
Sgt. William Lagasse
Sgt. Chadwick Brooks
Robert Turcios
NoC witnesses (unverified - CIT have provided no evidence):
Sean Boger
Levi Stephens
Other witnesses that CIT allege support the flyover theory:
Edwark Paik
Terry Morin
Fake/planted/disinfo witnesses according to CIT:
Joel Sucherman
Mike Walter
Keith Wheelhouse
Lloyd England
Father McGraw
These are just the ones off the top of my head.
NoC witnesses:
Sgt. William Lagasse
Sgt. Chadwick Brooks
Robert Turcios
NoC witnesses (unverified - CIT have provided no evidence):
Sean Boger
Levi Stephens
Other witnesses that CIT allege support the flyover theory:
Edwark Paik
Terry Morin
Fake/planted/disinfo witnesses according to CIT:
Joel Sucherman
Mike Walter
Keith Wheelhouse
Lloyd England
Father McGraw
These are just the ones off the top of my head.
No Dom, and as far as I am aware they have not recanted their verifiable impact statements.
Still waiting for you to produce any evidence proving that they said what you claim they have said.
Also still waiting for you to produce some flyovers witnesses that are actually flyover witnesses and not impact witnesses.
The factual errors in your question alone make it unanswerable.
Have another crack at it, but in the meantime maybe you'd be so nice as to answer a few of the questions already on the table that you've avoided so far?
Flyover witnesses? Evidence of Boger and Stephens' NoC statements? Hmm?
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
How about those people inside the Pentagon, Dom? Interview any of them yet?
Ok, just wanted to clear a few things for people.
I believe CIT did interview April Gallop, who was in the Pentagon at the moment of impact. I've read her NEIT account which seems fairly straight forward, but I understand her name is shopped around by a few different CTers for some reason. I haven't really looked into how she now fits into conspiracy world.
Joel Sucherman did say that he saw the plane 3 to 5 seconds after AA77. It is in the "2nd Plane Cover Story" ( http://www.thepentacon.com/2ndplanecoverstory2.htm ). His answer was a guess, and my interpretation of what he is saying is that he saw it 3 to 5 seconds after impact, not that it was 3 to 5 seconds behind AA77. He says he sees it off to the west, and that it peeled off to the north, at altitude.
He explicitly states that the plane did not get to or pass over the Pentagon, and that, when looking towards the west, he saw it peel off to the north.
Can I urge people to watch the "2nd Plane Cover Story" if only for the ridiculous interview at the beginning. It has Craig, and a chair that seems to be wearing Aldo, giving details on precisely how the Government "ambiguously blended" the C-130 into official story to fool flyover witnesses into thinking they saw something else.
My favourite quote:
Craig Ranke - "But it was blended! There was a second plane! There was more than one second plane!"
There's also a lot of dishonesty from Aldo in this video... A lot of it. I'll just quickly point out three things:
1) Aldo, whilst pointing out the flaws in Sucherman's account, says, about the RADES data:
Aldo Marquis: "It does not have the C130 ... 3 to 5 seconds behind the alleged AA jet."
This shows exactly how CIT have interpreted his statement. When Sucherman says he say the plane 3 to 5 seconds after seeing the impact, they take his account as literally saying the plane was 3 to 5 seconds behind AA77.
2) Aldo claims that the C-130, according to the RADES data, would have turned away before Sucherman could have even seen it. Have a look at the map. The yellow line is the flight path. The flight starts the turn about a mile away from Sucherman's position, which at altitude he has a clear view of, and passes directly over the Navy Annex.
I apologise for the quality, it's a screen grab.
3) When trying to point out how Wheelhouse and Sucherman's flight paths are different (they're actually not if you understand where Wheelhouse was and what his POV was) Aldo states that Wheelhouse claimed the plane turned north between the Sheraton and the Navy Annex. Wheelhouse did not! If you listen, Wheelhouse specifically says he couldn't tell exactly where it turned north, but drew a line anyway to give an example of the angle. And ultimately, Wheelhouse put the C-130 only about 300 meters to the west of the RADES flightpath.
All of these lies were told in the space of around a minute or so. The presentation goes for 34 minutes.
I believe CIT did interview April Gallop, who was in the Pentagon at the moment of impact. I've read her NEIT account which seems fairly straight forward, but I understand her name is shopped around by a few different CTers for some reason. I haven't really looked into how she now fits into conspiracy world.
Joel Sucherman did say that he saw the plane 3 to 5 seconds after AA77. It is in the "2nd Plane Cover Story" ( http://www.thepentacon.com/2ndplanecoverstory2.htm ). His answer was a guess, and my interpretation of what he is saying is that he saw it 3 to 5 seconds after impact, not that it was 3 to 5 seconds behind AA77. He says he sees it off to the west, and that it peeled off to the north, at altitude.
He explicitly states that the plane did not get to or pass over the Pentagon, and that, when looking towards the west, he saw it peel off to the north.
Can I urge people to watch the "2nd Plane Cover Story" if only for the ridiculous interview at the beginning. It has Craig, and a chair that seems to be wearing Aldo, giving details on precisely how the Government "ambiguously blended" the C-130 into official story to fool flyover witnesses into thinking they saw something else.
My favourite quote:
Craig Ranke - "But it was blended! There was a second plane! There was more than one second plane!"
There's also a lot of dishonesty from Aldo in this video... A lot of it. I'll just quickly point out three things:
1) Aldo, whilst pointing out the flaws in Sucherman's account, says, about the RADES data:
Aldo Marquis: "It does not have the C130 ... 3 to 5 seconds behind the alleged AA jet."
This shows exactly how CIT have interpreted his statement. When Sucherman says he say the plane 3 to 5 seconds after seeing the impact, they take his account as literally saying the plane was 3 to 5 seconds behind AA77.
2) Aldo claims that the C-130, according to the RADES data, would have turned away before Sucherman could have even seen it. Have a look at the map. The yellow line is the flight path. The flight starts the turn about a mile away from Sucherman's position, which at altitude he has a clear view of, and passes directly over the Navy Annex.
I apologise for the quality, it's a screen grab.
3) When trying to point out how Wheelhouse and Sucherman's flight paths are different (they're actually not if you understand where Wheelhouse was and what his POV was) Aldo states that Wheelhouse claimed the plane turned north between the Sheraton and the Navy Annex. Wheelhouse did not! If you listen, Wheelhouse specifically says he couldn't tell exactly where it turned north, but drew a line anyway to give an example of the angle. And ultimately, Wheelhouse put the C-130 only about 300 meters to the west of the RADES flightpath.
All of these lies were told in the space of around a minute or so. The presentation goes for 34 minutes.
Last edited:
Whilst on the subject of Wheelhouse, it's important to understand why CIT are trying desperately to discredit him.
You know how CIT keep saying that NoC is unanimous amongst all the witnesses?
Well, it's not, and this is their dirty little secret.
Have a look at The 2nd Plane Cover Story ( http://www.thepentacon.com/2ndplanecoverstory2.htm ). At around 14:20 into it they show the flightpath that Wheelhouse drew...
You know how CIT keep saying that NoC is unanimous amongst all the witnesses?
Well, it's not, and this is their dirty little secret.
Have a look at The 2nd Plane Cover Story ( http://www.thepentacon.com/2ndplanecoverstory2.htm ). At around 14:20 into it they show the flightpath that Wheelhouse drew...
Last edited:
chillzero
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2002
- Messages
- 15,547
Have I got them mixed up again?
chillzero
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2002
- Messages
- 15,547
I'm posting this as a moderator:
Then carry out your conversations over there. Do not use this forum as a proxy for non members.
Addressed to everyone - if we see this continue (this is not the first instance) any such posts will immediately be removed.
HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2007
- Messages
- 459
May be CIT needs to AAH.
Never mind! he is also on vacation!
Never mind! he is also on vacation!
Of course, they are attempting to discredit him. Notice how they keep emphasizing his "shadowing" terminology to demonstrate that he is not credible. What he said is always interpreted very literally while CIT "interprets" ambiguous statements by other witnesses. It's fraud and spin at it's finest.
BTW, I am not volunteering to do a paper on the witnesses, I just suggested it.
Boib,
CIT "uses" April because IIRC her statements were related to possible explosives used at the Pentagon.
She was also in Loose Change.
You would think that the CIT would internvew more witnesses inside the Pentagon but as they have demonstrated time and time again they are more interested in their fantasy then the truth.
CIT "uses" April because IIRC her statements were related to possible explosives used at the Pentagon.
She was also in Loose Change.
You would think that the CIT would internvew more witnesses inside the Pentagon but as they have demonstrated time and time again they are more interested in their fantasy then the truth.
Last edited:
Have a look at The 2nd Plane Cover Story ( http://www.thepentacon.com/2ndplanecoverstory2.htm ). At around 14:20 into it they show the flightpath that Wheelhouse drew...
[qimg]http://img110.mytextgraphics.com/photolava/2008/06/20/wheelhousefp-4awtbk1di.jpeg[/qimg]
If you continue to watch, they go to stand where he was and claim that he could not have seen anything, but they're not actually standing where the X he drew. They're standing on a footpath inside the cemetery, on the other side of a bunch of trees and buildings the X is in front of. I haven't rewatched this yet to check where exactly he said he was standing, but he certainly marked a different location.
nicepants
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 1,723
I love that every witness who disagrees with CIT is "fake/planted/disinfo".
It would be quite interesting to present CIT's theory to CIT's star witnesses, explaining to them that a flight path north of the citgo and the impact they describe are mutually exclusive, and let them determine which claim to abandon, instead of the determination being made by Craig.