tell me super anonymous armchair research authoritive, why dont the witnesses recant their placement of the plane and put it where you want it to be for you?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
CIT.....Time to call it a day
- Thread starter Mr.Herbert
- Start date
tell me super anonymous armchair research authoritive, why dont the witnesses recant their placement of the plane and put it where you want it to be for you?
You sound like Balsamo. Non-conclusions, and just waving hands about how your witnesses prove something. The truth is you cannot figure out 9/11. Your own witnesses prove you wrong. Why are you unable to figure this out?
Are you still selling this false information of DVD with CIT and p4t?
Boger saw 77 hit the building. There goes your fantasy. And you have ignored the dead people from 77. Why are you not able to connect a single dot?
Say hi to Balsamo next time he tells you to not post a path.
All your witnesses seem to debunk your ideas and non conclusions on 9/11. Why? What is your problem with understanding witnesses? Why do you ignore the many witnesses who saw 77 impact the Pentagon with the KE of a 2000 pound bomb? Do you understand physics?
So after 6 years, why do you continue making up false information and telling lies? Why have you failed to understand you have failed to support your ideas?
Last edited:
Arus808
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 6,204
why do they need to recant? people remember things differently. do you remember the exact position of every shard of glass of a broken bottle when you saw it hit the floor? can you place every single shard in its place, how it was on the floor and how they appeared? yet you know that the bottle shattered on the floor. Does the placement of the shards by your memory change the fact that the bottled shattered?
Sorry Dom, I haven't heard from either.
Levi definately received my email but has not responded. I think I'm gonna give up on him. I've already sent two followups.
Not sure what's happening with Sean. I'll wait another day or two and then send another followup.
But I can tell you what the word on Joel Sucherman is.
Hint: He's not where CIT claim he was on the morning of 9/11!
He seems like a really nice guy, actually.
TC,
When you get a moment please PM me the contact info for the CIT witnesses.
I will be happy to discuss this issue with them.
You keep saying this over and over again like it is a challenge yet everyone knows that you have ZERO intent of providing anyone any contact details.
Bob has only contacted 2 of your "witnesses" and one wants his photo and recording removed from your site while the other doenst even remember giving your permission to record.
Why are you even commenting on this anyway?
Werent you expelled from the CIT treefort?
I dunno, why don't they recant and say the plane missed the building?
It's not my job to "figure out" 9/11.
Maybe if Bush's handpicked Commission that Zelikow admitted was in constant contact with Rove wrote a better fable none of us would be here right now.
I don't "sell" anything so I have no idea what you are trying to imply.
Boger also said the plane banked over the Navy Annex, approached on the NoC and that he didn't see it hit any lightpoles. Just like LaGasse, Brooks, & Turcious. There goes your fantasy. And the people who told me died on Flight 77 are the same people that told me Iraq had WMD's and the PATRIOT act wouldn't be used on American citizens and that none of us were being spied on and there were no secret CIA prisons where people were being tortured and Abu Ghraib was an 'isolated' incident and Pat Tillman went out Rambo style in a gun battle with Al Qaeda.
I'm sorry I'm real "SKEPTICAL" of your source for information.
Yeah physics says the plane can't cause that damage from the NoC flight path and that Roosevelt can't see a silver commercial airliner where he sees it after explosions if it struck the building. I get those physics real well, why don't you?
Is this the part where you guys start calling a Police Officer a "drunk" again with no evidence what so ever?
That would be you.
I haven't "failed to support my ideas". These eyewitnesses and their historical accounts and their implications are not my nor anyone else's "ideas".
The fact that some low lifes constantly try this deceptive move of attempting to convince people that average everyday American citizens experience are our "ideas" is ridiculous and transparent.
Now be honest with me Bob. Why do you think Levi won't respond if he saw what the government states took place?
I hope both these men take the time to reply to you. I also hope you have opened their eyes to what really happened on 9/11.
Joel Sucherman isn't the only person moving his true position on 9/11 but you'll learn soon enough...........
they didn't watch the plane miss the building.
they watched it approach over the Annex on the NoC though......
why don't they recant that and say they were wrong and it was on the other side of the station ripping light poles out of the ground and shredding tree tops on it's approach?
the lightpoles were right in front of Levi.
TC seriously you and the CIT have more "coming soon's" then a wharehouse full of porn.
And you are doing a great job at that!
Your true colors are showing, political rant and seems you don't like bush. Is this your problem, you make up lies cause you hate bush? But making up lies in your book, is what Bush does; so you are just like bush?
I thought you worked with the other false information guys, CIT and p4t who sell non conclusions and failed ideas on 9/11, for 15 bucks, with false information like yours.
What was the bank angle great witnesses investigator? In degrees please. There you go again, your waving your hands and talking about stuff that does not mean anything on 9/11. Take your political biases and go to that forum. (so he says he lies because other lie? What?)
Oh, yes, you don't believe in DNA, FDR, or other facts about 77's impact into the Pentagon. That is right you are saying the poles were planted! LOL
Wrong, physics is what makes all of your ideas false. But then you were the one with the impossible non-paths. So you need to work on your math and physics.
You have a way with witness statements only a pink panther movie character shares with you.
Sorry, I have understood 9/11 for over 6 years. Even UBL is sharper on this topic than you and all of 9/11 truth. The terrorist understand 9/11, you don't!
You have failed to analyze their statements and come up with rational conclusions. You bend them and call them part of some plot when they do not agree with your ideas. But gee, most of the ones you use debunk your ideas.
Your ideas are pure fantasy, it seems you will tell lies to try to discredit Bush, but rational people use real facts, not the kind of fantasy and lies you produce.
(one of your deceptions (aka, a lie), poles were planted )
Not being inside their heads, of course I can't say what they did or did not see, or whether their memory is an accurate interpretation of the sensory inputs involved.
However, what they say is that the airplane hit the building. Why don't they recant?
Since I know that memory is malleable, and can be changed by the circumstances under which it is recalled, I have no problem with a witness being mistaken about what exactly was in the background of what they were seeing, especially if being asked leading questions. I can easily believe that if it appeared an airplane was going to hit me, that in processing that information with an eye toward my own survival, I might not notice or care that it had clipped a light pole, if the light pole was a lesser threat to life and limb. The relative bearing of a gas station would probably not be high on my list of details to keep burned in my mind either.
But having been faced with a threat, I'd sure want to know what happened to it. I would have a great deal more trouble believing that they didn't notice what happened to the airplane.
So, their testimony fits into my world view just fine.
CIT, though, has the opposite problem. They have to believe that the witnesses have extremely reliable memories of the incident, correctly recording and reporting every detail perfectly accurately right up to the point where the big airplane hit the big building not so far away from them. Then all of the witnesses were mistaken, or forgot, or something. But for this memorable portion of the event their testimony is no longer reliable.
Presumably, that fits into CIT's world view.
I just don't know why.
Well, I think Joel Sucherman described this to me quite perfectly in the opening paragraph of his email -
"I appreciate your note. It is, sadly, fairly common for conspiracy crazies to pass themselves off as 'truth seekers' only to see that they end up twisting the facts so greatly or making ridiculous leaps from one comment or another, that I am a little reluctant to engage in a conversation with people I don't know. I will say this,"
There you have one of the witnesses himself stating why he doesn't want to talk about the subject to those he doesn't know. I got the distinct impression that Levi feels exactly the same, particularly in the way he seemed to ask Craig and Aldo to stop contacting him.
That's great. Let's wait and see.
Joel hasn't moved anything.
And let me guess, Terry Morin is the other person moving his position? Dude, already been over this. Craig's interpretation of Morin's statements is as woefully incorrect as his analysis of the light poles in the USA Today Parade video (which he has now admitted to).
And we have to take Craig's word for it that Morin now claims to have said these things, and that Morin also marked his location on a map - except Morin did not give permission to be recorded nor to release the map.
Last edited:
I Just wanted to catalogue the many phases of Craig Ranke's denial to illustrate how much arguing is required to get him to see the real truth. This should serve as a useful tool for others out there who want to see what they've got to get through in order to change his mind.
All quotes were captured within a single thread and are all related to the issue of whether or not CIT had mislabelled the poles (particularly pole #1) in their USA Today Parade video.
Most quotes represent a cherry picked (there were so many to choose from) sentence from many individual messages, though there are a few multiple liners towards the bottom. And it all transpired here -> http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=144&st=0
Anyway, here it is... Don't forgot the special section at the bottom.
The penny drops...
At least he had the balls to concede and apologise, gotta give him that.
All quotes were captured within a single thread and are all related to the issue of whether or not CIT had mislabelled the poles (particularly pole #1) in their USA Today Parade video.
Most quotes represent a cherry picked (there were so many to choose from) sentence from many individual messages, though there are a few multiple liners towards the bottom. And it all transpired here -> http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=144&st=0
Anyway, here it is... Don't forgot the special section at the bottom.
The penny drops...
At least he had the balls to concede and apologise, gotta give him that.
Last edited:
Cool.
How about you ask Joel to describe that second "jet" he watched "veered off" and in which direction it "veered off" towards?
Let the rest of us know what he says about that. Show him a pic of a C130 too and ask him to confirm that was the "jet", k?
You do know that the tree was still noticably taller than the observation deck in the tower? Why did Mr. Wallace and Mr. Skipper run, TC? Lyte & WAldwin's flightpath from Mr. El Kournayti to Mr. Paik takes it harmlessly over the cemetery and it's only supposed to turn towards them when it's hidden behind the tree. What gives? Why are the trees only impervious to light when they agree with the "official" flightpath?TC said:
No. I don't see any reason to believe he'd be able to notice light poles getting knocked down by a large airplane doing 460+KIAS, while he was 150m away and on the other side of an elevated highway, do you? How much of the poles on the other side of the road can you see in this image by D'rok/bobloblaw, TC? Do they show up fully, or just a fraction of an upper part?TC said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_139414856ab32690ea.jpg
To repeat my previous question a bit more directly - was Mr. Stephens in a position to even see the Citgo, so that he would be able to make a distinction between the NoC and SoC flightpaths?
And to repeat the question here - was Mr. Boger in a position to even see the Citgo, particularly its northern part?TC said:
And to repeat and rephrase one of the other questions I've been asking for the last few months - how do you make a distinction between a false and a real memory, when you refuse hard evidence and all you've got are other people's memories? How do *you* substantiate *your* fantasy?TC said:
Dude, this is getting weak.
Craig challenges me to ask Sucherman where he was on 9/11, so I ask him. Now you're not satisfied with that, so you invent another bunch of questions to ask him.
Well he's pretty easy to find, Dom, and I heard from him what I needed to hear. If you need to hear something, well, why don't you ask him?
I'm not sure of what the relevance is about this supposed second "jet", Dom. He has already described seeing the impact and we've now discovered that the USA Today Parade is wrong about almost every aspect of Sucherman's story. And we know there was a C-130 in the air that was behaving in a manner consistent with what Sucherman describes, even if he's unable to correctly identify the aircraft type.
Remember that Cindy Reyes said your white plane had propellers.
Is that true? I haven't been up-to-date with CIT videos since the original smoking gun...
It must be hard when you make a video with a preconceived conviction that the C-130 was flying near the Mall. You just miss such obvious details in your interviews. For the audience like me, it's just funny when your delusions make you release a video supporting the exact oposite of what you're trying to say.
Lyte's feet must look like sieves with all the bullets they've been peppered with. It seems that for every smoking gun, there's a bullet in Lyte's foot. And now they're saying they've got more?!
I understand why you wouldn't want to ask him about part of the story that is irreconcilible with the official story, Bob.
Just like you attacked CIT before asking Levi & Sean if CIT portrayed their accounts accurately. You have no objectivity whatsoever Bob. None and it saddens me.
You have an agenda and your not shy about it and it has nothing to do with the truth about 9/11 and everything to do with attempting to discredit Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke.
I'm sure you have. Joel saw the plane in front of him and out his passenger window. So where was he at exactly?
There was no "second jet", Bob. So Joel watching a "second jet" veer off and peel away from the Pentagon means he watched the plane he thought hit the Pentagon veer off and fly away afterwards. Do you not grasp that Bob?
You don't think thats not worth clarifying with Mr. Sucherman?
Or are you only interested in attacking Aldo & Craig?
Sucherman is telling his story in the USA Today Parade. Sucherman says he didn't see the plane he watched fly across his windshield then through his passenger window into the pentagon hit any light poles. He says he saw a 'second jet veer off' and fly away from the Pentagon but there was no 'second jet'.
No Bob, we don't. The C130 was never near the Pentagon. The explosions took place long before the C130 could even identitfy them as originating from the Pentagon. You haven't heard the account from O'Brien you take it from questionable unreliable second hand sources. Of course they suit your agenda though.
Irrelevant to Sucherman.
How can you mess up 9/11 more? You have taken what the passengers on flight 93 figure out in minutes, and messed up every single thing about 9/11. Your false information seems to be a curse and I guess you do not even know you are wrong. You have got nothing right, but you still keep saying your false claptrap.
Your highlight of fantasy, presenting the under the wire flying suv white jet! Outstanding, perfecting the bumbling investigator, who can only prove one thing beyond doubt, you hate Bush, Clinton and reality.
You have to be the worse investigator in the history, next to Clouseau...
Do you mean less than 3000 feet is not close? The C-130 flew up to the Pentagon, and was less than 3000 feet away. What do you really mean?
Last edited: