Regarding 'Debunking the North of the Citgo Theory'

[TheLoneBedouin]

When you couple this together with CIT’s known predilection for cherry picking, ignoring contrary evidence, leading and misleading their own witnesses, perhaps you will begin to see why the CIT is considered a laughingstock by even those in the Truth Movement.

Source for this nonsense?

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Btw, I'd just like to comment on how ridiculous the Jref denial clan really is. Many froth-mouthed Jrefers have suggested that CIT are "frauds" and that they are "misleading the witnisses", as if they could magically sway dozens of people to state on camera the NOC or the Pentagon flyover or the Navy Annex flyover. Is Craig Ranke a master hypnotist?

 

[D'rok]

...as if they could magically sway dozens of people to state on camera the...the Pentagon flyover?

You have flyover witnesses? Do tell.

 

[robeeb]

Technically, neither of those designs have "fixed" wings. Vectored thrust (which Reheat doesn't mention in the article, despite dismissing on LCF) would *not* be subject to the same bank angles since the entire point is to vector thrust in directions besides "forward". Furthermore, there *are* aircraft that can make his ridiculous turns- so it is simply a lie to say that his calculations are "aircraft independent". This was more of a side note anyway, since he clearly misinterpreted Morin's account.
A more important question is why have so many self-proclaimed "critical thinkers" accepted the distortions of an anonymous "pilot" without raising such basic questions?

You just demonstrated my point. You really don't know what a fixed wing aircraft is, even after someone defined it for you. A fixed wing aircraft is just that, fixed. Aircraft with variable geometry wings, such as the F-14, and F-111 are still fixed wing aircraft. A rotary wing aircraft is a helicopter or auto-gyro. Those are the definitions, and even you must know that an airplane and a helicopter are two completely different types of aircraft. As far as thrust vectoring, it is not related to and has no bearing on the definition of fixed wing or rotary wing aircraft. You can't expect people to take you seriously if you lack the knowledge of basic aeronautical terms and definitions.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

You just demonstrated my point. You really don't know what a fixed wing aircraft is, even after someone defined it for you. A fixed wing aircraft is just that, fixed. Aircraft with variable geometry wings, such as the F-14, and F-111 are still fixed wing aircraft. A rotary wing aircraft is a helicopter or auto-gyro. Those are the definitions, and even you must know that an airplane and a helicopter are two completely different types of aircraft. As far as thrust vectoring, it is not related to and has no bearing on the definition of fixed wing or rotary wing aircraft. You can't expect people to take you seriously if you lack the knowledge of basic aeronautical terms and definitions.

Ok, so why don't you apply that same logic to Reheat. His conflation of the decoy jet an AA77, and his "aircraft independent" claim are two basic errors. Why take Reheat seriously?

 

[HyJinX]

You have flyover witnesses? Do tell.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

You have flyover witnesses? Do tell.

Audio.

 

[HyJinX]

Audio.

I don't have speakers on my computer. Can you please type the statement your audio points to, and who said it?

Thank you.

 

[D'rok]

Audio.

I don't have realplayer on my work computer. Is there a transcript?

 

[uk_dave]

as if they could magically sway dozens of people to state on camera the NOC or the Pentagon flyover or the Navy Annex flyover.

How many?

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

I don't have realplayer on my work computer. Is there a transcript?

WAV
MP3

 

[HyJinX]

WAV
MP3

Yeah...ummmm....still no speakers on the old computer here. Transcript, perhaps? Anything?

 

[D'rok]

@ 1:32(ish) - "As I hung up the phone, the plane hit the building" [emphasis added].
@ 1:45(ish) - "I ran to the centre of the dock and I looked up, and I saw another plane flying around the south parking lot..." [emphasis added].

Colour me underwhelmed. Does it get better later on?

 

[bje]

No. The "entire body of witnesses" means "the entire body of witnesses to events concerning the attack at the Pentagon". It does not mean "the entire body of witnesses to events surrounding the attack at the Pentagon".

I am not clear what you mean by "the entire body of witnesses to events surrounding the attack at the Pentagon." What do you mean by "events surrounding" the attack?

Evidence must be appraised before it is considered material evidence, not after

For example, if someone lied about there location, and they are proven to be in a completely different location than they said they were, their testimony would be invalidated and hence would neither prove nor disprove a hypothesis.

Again, any hypothesis is irrelevant to my questions. The process of interviewing eyewitnesses to actual events would necessarily weed out unreliable, lying, and mixed-up people making them immaterial and excluded, wouldn't you agree?

Getting back to the point, I will count your responses as agreeing with me that no evidence should ever be excluded from being investigated nor should any credible eyewitness be ignored and whose account would be excluded.

Is that an accurate representation of your position?

 

[WildCat]

TheLoneBedouin, that corner you're backed into must be getting pretty tight... your witnesses all claim the plane hit the Pentagon, correct? Or do you have any witnesses that claim they saw a flyover?

 

[The Big Dog]

Source for this nonsense?

Well, now that is not really fair, now is it? I asked you for the math to support your claims that the calculation in the article were incorrect, and you have ignored it, time after time after time.

Oh hell, I'm feeling generous, let us start:

As for cherry picking and ignoring contrary evidence, what was that thing that ALL of the CIT witnesses said that CIT has completely discounted? Oh yeah: THE PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON

As for leading and misleading witnesses? Well, I assume that you have seen Ranke in his own film "correct" his witnesses, haven't you? NO? Pity.

Well, why take it from me, here is what a well known troother who used to work with the CIT frauds had to say:

“When I watched you guys bending reality in person conjuring up black operations for everything that didn’t agree with you - I saw where this was going. When your partner tipped over and the forums melted down - it was clear what the motives were. But I do have to admit your dissociation from reality has exceeded what I thought possible… Ego is a blinding force - but spreading this as gospel and irrefutable instead of adding it to the body of evidence truthfully and honestly is .........”

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

@ 1:32(ish) - "As I hung up the phone, the plane hit the building" [emphasis added].
@ 1:45(ish) - "I ran to the centre of the dock and I looked up, and I saw another plane flying around the south parking lot..." [emphasis added].

Colour me underwhelmed. Does it get better later on?

He didn't see the plane impact the building- he says he hung up the phone at the precise moment when he heard the explosion. Then he ran outside and saw a plane- immediately after the explosion. Here's a rough transcript.

Narrator:Okay, and you agreed to have this information submitted to the Library of Congress for future archive, and the Utah State University for future archive.

Roberts:Yeah.

Narrator:Ok. Wonderful. If you could go ahead Officer Roberts and take us back to September 11.

Roberts:Ok. [indecipherable assumed: I was on] my overtime unit 156, which was scheduled to be at the heliport at 10:45 for a departing flight. So I was doing my release and, uh, coming towards that side of the building and I stopped at the south loading dock and I relieved one [break assumed: of the officers stationed there]. As I was sitting there there's a tv thats right there and all of a sudden a news flash came across the tv that said the World trade center has been bombed. First thing that came to my mind is New York City, because I'm from New York, and I started thinking about my parents. So after I thought about it I looked again and they said there was another plane coming on the television. Then my sarge, sargeant Woody, he called and he said "Hey Rob, listen we've gone to threat con delta(?)" I hang up the phone- the plane hit the building. Watching the tv it was almost timed for preciseness. As I hung up the phone and I ran to the center of the dock and I looked up I saw another plane flying around the south parking lot- this is about like 9:12, 9:11 in the morning.

 

[Reheat]

Ok, so why don't you apply that same logic to Reheat. His conflation of the decoy jet an AA77,

This is important ONLY to you. I could give a crap less what you think. There was only 1 aircraft anyway, AA77, and it struck the Pentagon.

and his "aircraft independent" claim are two basic errors. Why take Reheat seriously?

This is another thing that makes you a joke. My statements are correct and you are WRONG because you are ignorant about aerodynamics.

 

[D'rok]

He didn't see the plane impact the building- he says he hung up the phone at the precise moment when he heard the explosion. Then he ran outside and saw a plane- immediately after the explosion. Here's a rough transcript.

He says he "...saw another plane flying around the south parking lot". So where's the bit where he witnesses the flyover?

 

[Reheat]

This is a constant rate, constant level turn.

Not according to Morin, who witnesses a descent. This decreases g load for a constant bank and speed.

Find any aeronautical site on the Internet which supports this in context. In other words an authoritative written source. You lose again....

Where is your source, bozo?