Regarding 'Debunking the North of the Citgo Theory'

Drs Res said:
I hate to tell you this, but he did not say anything about the height of the aircraft.
Click to expand...
But he did see he could see it in its final moments which would be around Pentagon level :rolleyes:.
You are putting words into his mouth
Click to expand...
Tell me where I quote lagasse.
he was under a canopy!
Click to expand...
WTF are you talking about? The space is wide open and he says he could both hear it and see it. Do you commonly make crap up to support the OCT?
So now you concede it was low enough to hit the pentagon?.
Click to expand...
Thats not even in dispute. Of course it could have. If you've got anything cogent to say I'll not put you on ignore (though its not looking good, judging from your last few posts).
 
TheLoneBedouin said:
But he did see he could see it in its final moments which would be around Pentagon level :rolleyes:.

Tell me where I quote lagasse.

WTF are you talking about? The space is wide open and he says he could both hear it and see it. Do you commonly make crap up to support the OCT?

That's not even in dispute. Of course it could have. If you've got anything cogent to say I'll not put you on ignore (though its not looking good, judging from your last few posts).
Click to expand...

My entire post was in reference to your "flyover witness" Roberts, not Lagasse.

We may have crossed signals here since there is conversation about two different people in this thread at the moment.

ETA: After looking the thread over again, it appears that I made a mistake and responded to two different posts about two different people. Seems I should use the Quote button to better advantage in the future. My apologies.
 
Last edited:
Foolmewunz said:
LB,
Maybe you guys wanna leave Roberts out of it?
I have to wonder if you can count change. You can't do flight vectors, and now you can't tell time.
Let us read this more logically..... He's a pretty precise witness.

So the TV was reporting the WTC had been bombed. Right. That was in the first 15-20 minutes after WTC 1 was hit. And "there was another plane coming on the television"...... THAT WASN'T 77 !!!! He's talking about the one we all know was on television, UA175. His words make sense in no other way, because there ain't no footage of 77 heading for Washington, IS THERE?

So as he got off the phone the plane hit the building! You think he's talking about the Pentagon and he's talking about television... The hit on WTC 2.

You guys can't be serious.
Click to expand...
He goes and helps survivors after he sees the plane. Its not a full transcript- listen to the audio. It had to have been the flyover plane.
And then his comment about it being around 9:12 or 9:11 when he saw some other plane? Well, the timing, right after the tv shots, would be possible, but I have no idea what plane he'd be talking about... (anyone know if there are records of recon or other flights checking out the Pentagon fifteen to twenty minutes before 77 hit?).... But if it's just minutes after 175 hit tower 2, there ain't no way even remotely witnessing 77.
Click to expand...
Big deal- he misreported the time. You want to tell Robert's police department that he didn't help people in the Pentagon, go right ahead.
 
Hi TheLoneBedouin,

Can you clarify something for me?

The FDR, that you have analysed, was it found at the Pentagon?
 
TheLoneBedouin said:
Yes, unfortunately much of the evidence in this case was taken by the suspect and permanently sequestered. That's why CIT is so important- they are gathering an analyzing new evidence. Some people don't like new evidence, especially when it overturns a commonly-believed paradigm. They will do anything to stop such investigations- even creating a speculative model in order to prove the data 'impossible'.
No testimony should be excluded from the possibility of becoming "material evidence".
Click to expand...


So then the "suspect" would be the FBI. Why exactly is the FBI the tool of your imaginary conspiracy? How did this happen? What do the Democrats in the bureau think about all of this and what could their motives conceivably be?
 
Last edited:
TheLoneBedouin said:
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?
Click to expand...


No, Craig Ranke is an agenda-driven dimwit who understands perfectly well that he is running a scam. It is, of course, completely untrue that "dozens" of people support the NOC flight path. Absolutely no one witnessed a flyover of the Pentagon. Many people insist that they saw a plane crash into the Pentagon, but, for unfathomable reasons, they don't count.
 
TheLoneBedouin said:
That was the flyover plane- its the only possibility.

Besides the pilot stating that he didn't shadow the plane, its physically impossible for a C-130 to shadow a 600 mph 757. It could only be the flyover plane.
Click to expand...

So your flyover witness didn't actually witness the flyover? Are you sure you don't want to modify your claims a bit in that respect?
 
At that low altitude the plane cant make the banking hockey stick turn you are attributing it to in your yellow line illustration several pages ago without this happening. In fact at any altitude.

 
I love the idea that there were two planes yet only 1 person happened to see them both the rest of the 1000s of people somehow missed the 2nd plane flying over top. Even funnier is the idea of the people coming up with such a plan:

"Yeah, so we'll fly two planes on on top of the other and one will be e decoy"

"But don't you think the 1000s of witnesses might notice the 2nd plane?"

"Nah, don't think about that kind of stuff. We're not going to fly any plane into the building, we're going to fly one right over and one north of the citgo, then we'll crash the real plane, plant the bodies and parts at the scene at the exact time of the bomb going off . Oh BTW boys, try not to get hurt by the bomb while you're planting those parts there in front of 1000s of people...."

My god, the endless stupid...
 
TheLoneBedouin said:
No, there is no other way to explain it.
Click to expand...

Of course there is.

But if your pre-determined conclusion is a conspiracy, then no, there is no other way to explain it because it's the only answer that can lead you to the result you already decided you wanted before you made a show to make people think you did research.
 
StateofGrace said:
Can you clarify something for me?

The FDR, that you have analysed, was it found at the Pentagon?
Click to expand...
I have never analyzed FDR data. I don't know if any FDR data was recovered from the Pentagon- for that I would need to know the chain of evidence.
The FDR data provided by FOIA does not seem to be from the Pentagon since it places the plane NOC.
 
TheLoneBedouin said:
I have never analyzed FDR data. I don't know if any FDR data was recovered from the Pentagon- for that I would need to know the chain of evidence.
The FDR data provided by FOIA does not seem to be from the Pentagon since it places the plane NOC.
Click to expand...

So Turbofan is wrong when he claims the FDR was recovered from the Pentagon then?

He said

Yes the FDR was found at the Pentagon. Planted, or manipulated.
Click to expand...

So who is correct? You or him ?
 
Last edited:
BJE said:
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?
Click to expand...
Sure, why didn't you say that in the first place?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom