CIT.....Time to call it a day

[bobloblaw]

Why even give TC/Dom the attention hs sooo much desires.
Is he still even part of the CIT Scooby Doo club?

Yeah, I'm done with him.

I asked him numerous times for a flyover witness and he gives me... Joel Sucherman.

It's not really worth the sanity arguing with these clowns. They lie, twist, distort and deceive, and even when you do prove them wrong it takes them a good 10 pages of thread to admit it (ala Ranke and the poles), if they even admit it all...

... and at the end of the day they still do not have a single witness that supports the basic premise of their theory - the plane flew over the Pentagon.

Complete waste of time and sanity.

 

[TC329]

I don't care what you call me, Dom.

Your little display here has proven to me that you have no ability to objectively analyse any of the witnesses.

Thats why you asked Sucherman in detail about the plane he saw peel away 3-5 seconds that he thought was gonna come back again.

Thats why you asked Sean about it banking over the Navy Annex.

Thats why you asked Levi about the light poles.

Go on with you little ad homs all night Dishonest Bob. Any honest human being that isn't a part of the kool aid drinking Bush cult at this site can see you for who you are and what you're trying to do. You're transparent.

And CIT's 13 witnesses placing the plane on the NoC prove no matter what little numbers posters here want to invent out of thin air they're still wrong.

These people have no bias in recounting what they experienced on 9/11.
The Bush Neonazicons at this site have nothing but bias to prove those witnesses are lying/mistaken/hallucinating/being led/proven wrong mathematically.....lol

 

[TheRedWorm]

3-5 seconds? How fast was the plane going before it struck flew over the Pentagon? Would it even be visible from Mr. Sucherman's position 3-5 seconds after impact flyover assuming a constant velocity and heading?

I am genuinely curious, TC. I honestly have no idea of the answers to these questions, perhaps you can fill me in?

 

[bobloblaw]

So I'm a Bush supporter now...

... well, that'll just about it do it for me.

 

[TC329]

I am genuinely curious, TC. I honestly have no idea of the answers to these questions, perhaps you can fill me in?

Sure as soon as you tell me how I would be able to get that kind of data.

 

[beachnut]

So what you're saying is Boger is yet to recant his account of over the Navy Annex & NoC? Thought so......

You saying Boger, the guy who saw 77 hit the Pentagon...

What is your non-conclusion? I thought you are supporting a fly over and Boger says it hit, no he watched it hit the Pentagon, he heard 77 enter the Pentagon! Good job. You have debunked your non-conclusion. Case closed!

Now about your lie, the one about the lampposts...

 

[bobloblaw]

So what you're saying is Boger is yet to recant his account of over the Navy Annex & NoC? Thought so......

No, I am saying that Sean Boger has not recanted his account that AA77 impacted with, fully entered and then exploded inside the Pentagon building.

I have not even heard Sean Boger say he saw the plane NoC, or even over the annex. So why would I ask him about it?

Is there any proof he said what you claim he said?

I'd love to hear it.

ETA - Why do you keep ignoring the question about the flyover witnesses? Where are the flyover witnesses, Dom?

 

[Arus808]

that's the only question that should be put forth to the laughing stock, dom


Where are your flyover witnesse.s ANY other answer from you will be an aknowledgement from you that you dont have any

 

[jhunter1163]

When is CIT going to ask any of the hundreds of people that were INSIDE the Pentagon that day what they saw, or what kind of debris they picked up?

 

[beachnut]

No, I am saying that Sean Boger has not recanted his account that AA77 impacted with, fully entered and then exploded inside the Pentagon building.

I have not even heard Sean Boger say he saw the plane NoC, or even over the annex. So why would I ask him about it?

Is there any proof he said what you claim he said?

I'd love to hear it.

ETA - Why do you keep ignoring the question about the flyover witnesses? Where are the flyover witnesses, Dom?

I think TC or CIT has Boger pointing out to the south west, and they use that to say he said over the Annex, or NoC. Is the parking lot the Annex too?

But I think that is as close as they get, they made up what Boger said, using his pointing to the south west?

Like CIT taking Paik and drawing a line for him when he was really pointing straight to the Pentagon. Sad stuff; hard to watch CIT videos, they are incredibly dumb, filled with really stupid ideas. They even show Paik pointing in a animated gif, to the Pentagon! How dumb do you have to be believe CIT presentations?

 

[Dave Rogers]

"This thing" cant be "coming around to make a second attack" if it impacted the first time.

If "this thing" refers to a second plane, and he believed that the first plane had hit the Pentagon, then "coming around to make a second attack" would indicate that he suspected that whatever group had crashed the first plane into the Pentagon was now carrying out a second attack with another plane. Since something very similar had just happened at the WTC (unless you don't think there were any planes there either), how is this an unreasonable suspicion?

Dave

 

[TC329]

If "this thing" refers to a second plane, and he believed that the first plane had hit the Pentagon, then "coming around to make a second attack" would indicate that he suspected that whatever group had crashed the first plane into the Pentagon was now carrying out a second attack with another plane. Since something very similar had just happened at the WTC (unless you don't think there were any planes there either), how is this an unreasonable suspicion?

Dave

The key word is "if". Most likely Joel says it was a second plane because he believes his government is telling the truth that a plane hit the Pentagon just like the WTC.

Joel cannot see a plane peeling away 3-5 seconds after the explosion unless its the plane he believes hit the building. It cannot be the C130 if the RADES84 data is accurate.

It's quite obvious [especially since we know Joel was on the South end of Route 27 where any view of an impact would be obscured anyways] that Joel witnessed the flyover and thought that this plane was coming back to bomb the Pentagon a second time.

3-5 seconds after the explosion is the amount of time it takes Officer Roosevelt Roberts to exit the building to witness a silver commercial airliner over the parking lot "about 100 feet above the light poles".

 

[beachnut]

The key word is "if". Most likely Joel says it was a second plane because he believes his government is telling the truth that a plane hit the Pentagon just like the WTC.

Joel cannot see a plane peeling away 3-5 seconds after the explosion unless its the plane he believes hit the building. It cannot be the C130 if the RADES84 data is accurate.

It's quite obvious [especially since we know Joel was on the South end of Route 27 where any view of an impact would be obscured anyways] that Joel witnessed the flyover and thought that this plane was coming back to bomb the Pentagon a second time.

3-5 seconds after the explosion is the amount of time it takes Officer Roosevelt Roberts to exit the building to witness a silver commercial airliner over the parking lot "about 100 feet above the light poles".

First off, you can't mention the RADES data because you guy in CIT falsely say it is fake. So RADES does not exist for you. So next time you mention it you are saying you believe it is correct. You blame the military and the FAA for things you have no evidence to even doubt! You make up false information and seem to believe your own faulty analysis of witnesses. When I read each witness you have, they debunk you.

CIT, pilots for truth, citizen investigation team; team up to present false ideas on 9/11.

Since there were only two planes close to the Pentagon around the time 77 impacted! 77 is accounted for in the Pentagon which was seen by people impacting, and only the C-130 closed in to less than 3000 feet to peal off to the west. Sorry, you have been shut down by evidence. Your own witnesses saw 77 impact the Pentagon. They saw 77 impact the Pentagon then the fuel exploded.

You make up lies about planted lampposts, and try to spew a false flyover theory. Your own witnesses you use debunk your fantasy.

... if someone studies the online news accounts and statements from 9/11 about the Pentagon, it debunks the pentagcon, cit, pilots for truth so easy.

 

[TC329]

First off, you can't mention the RADES data because you guy in CIT falsely say it is fake. So RADES does not exist for you. So next time you mention it you are saying you believe it is correct.

LOL!!!

What circular logic!!

Listen your side believes the RADES84 Data is Legit so I can use it all day long to prove your theories wrong. You either have to admit Joel didn't see the C130 or the government released fabricated data.

Take your pick, Beachy.......

 

[bobloblaw]

It's quite obvious [especially since we know Joel was on the South end of Route 27 where any view of an impact would be obscured anyways]

Did you confirm Sucherman's location, Dom?

How would his view be obscured if you confirmed his location, Dom?

 

[TC329]

Did you confirm Sucherman's location, Dom?

How would his view be obscured if you confirmed his location, Dom?

Enlighten us all Bob, post a map.

 

[bobloblaw]

Enlighten us all Bob, post a map.

You didn't answer the question.

Did you confirm Sucherman's location, Dom?

How would his view be obscured if you confirmed his location, Dom?

Come one, you just stated that you know where he was. So where was he? Are you guessing? Did you confirm it with him?

How honest are you?

 

[beachnut]

LOL!!!

What circular logic!!

Listen your side believes the RADES84 Data is Legit so I can use it all day long to prove your theories wrong. You either have to admit Joel didn't see the C130 or the government released fabricated data.

Take your pick, Beachy.......

I thought it was too, at least you can define my errors in logic (your errors defy definition, I need a few experts to categorize your errors.), but since you accuse the military of faking the data, and do so without evidence, then you can stop talking about the RADES data. I mean, if you look at witness statements with the skills and tools taught to investigators at aircraft accident investigation school (I never saw you at class, did you not go to aircraft accident investigation school?), you would clearly understand the witnesses support the RADES data and the FDR information.

In fact I can tell you within a few degrees the actual bank angle you say Boger saw. But you can't define it past saying, bank! Why do you have problems with numbers? Darn, you present hearsay, the rest of the rational world uses facts and evidence. The very evidence you ignore, debunks you.

You left out a lot of options. There were only two planes in the area to choose from and one hit the Pentagon. You left out reality, your faulty logic left out the reality options. And since you do not understand witness statements, I doubt if you understand you are ignoring reality and using your own faulty analysis to make your non-conclusions. You also fail to present a rational case for your argument. No support, just talk, your own opinion, and hearsay

CIT (citizens investigation team) and p4t (pilots for 9/11 truth) ignore reality and try to lead people to false conclusion on 9/11. It is easy to debunk them, they present impossible paths, failed math and physics and they are experts (or just really bad at understanding) cherry pickers, they will tell you they are out there in the orchard picking them! They are proud of being merchants of false ideas. They brag about being out in the orchard when you accuse them of cherry picking statements. But it is not cherry picking; it is out right flawed analysis, because as you study the statements made by the people we are discussing; those statements do not support the ideas proposed by CIT, or you.

What is your logical error, ignorefactitis? Boger sees 77 impact the Pentagon, no one sees a flyover? Witness statements support the RADES data, and FDR, you ignore them.

Please remember, a reply to this means you lied again.


Oh, you used beachy again; does it mean you are joking about me being anonymous, or is CIT and p4t using your account again?

Jesus Christ Super anonymous research authoritive. ....

Congrats you are now the second person to go on my ignore list. You join Bobert. You're in great company......

...

Take your pick, Beachy.......

Authoritive not exactly, but, I'm not as authoritative as I once was, but I authoritative once, as I ever was.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The key word is "if". Most likely Joel says it was a second plane because he believes his government is telling the truth that a plane hit the Pentagon just like the WTC.

So you're editorialising a witness statement to make it look like it supports your theory. Noted.

Dave

 

[Alt+F4]

Why do you keep ignoring the question about the flyover witnesses? Where are the flyover witnesses, Dom?

Yes indeed, where are those flyover witnesses? After almost 900 posts on this thread still no answer.

In addition, if there was a flyover, where did the plane eventually land? You would think that if a 757 just made an unexpected landing at the wrong airport someone would take notice. Is the entire FAA "in on" a flyover?