Regarding 'Debunking the North of the Citgo Theory'

[HyJinX]

...

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

oops, he never said it "flew over the FOB". Who lied to you?

I suggest you read the paper before you try to defend it.

less than a minute after the FOB flyover[/b]-- several thousand people started exiting the FOB.”

Paik did not draw that line, I think CIT drew the line and had to crop the photo when the line failed to go NoC! Oops! Paik actually points towards, directly towards the Pentagon impact zone. Look at this.

You, Pomeroo, and Reheat are the worst pathological liars I've ever encountered. Oh, you think cit drew the line- you probably haven't even seen the movie.
Watch Paik draw the line.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Do you think that part may have come from a missile?

I have know idea- what's your point?

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Wow! This just gets ludicrouser and ludicrouser, doesn't it??????

Well of course it doesn't exist in TRW, you stoopied JREFers sheeple! We're talking about sooper sekret psy ops planes like Alex Jones knows that they have and he told me so, so it's gotta be true 'cuz Alex wouldn't make anything up. No he wouldn't, Nyah!

The point is, if such technology was used, it necessarily wouldn't be public technology. Thats not even the main point- once again you miss the crux of the matter.

It had to be! It just had to be!
Keep repeating that. The report of him watching TV is pretty clear. Admit it. You're now so far painted into your corner that you'll fight for anything and everything.
You offered his testimony up as proof of a flyover, and you are now supporting an interpretation that defies common sense, logic, or even liberal interpretation of his comments.
NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN THE PENTAGON PLANE ON TV. He is referring to AA175 hitting WTC 2. Give up!
And many of us don't have audio at work. You can just give us a transcript (I know you google warriors all have transcripts), but if it's as useful for your case as the Roberts' quote you might want to forget about it.

He goes outside after hearing the explosion and sees the plane. He immediately goes to help survivors. I have no clue what you're babbling about.

[snip froth-mouthed ramblings] Anything that contradicts your silly notions is hand waved away as insignificant.

Uh- what exactly does getting the time wrong contradict?

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

The trick in this case is making it look like an American Airlines airliner crashed into the Pentagon, just as a the trick for the magician is making it look like a woman was cut in half, right? So, those who witnessed the airliner crashing into the Pentagon actually witnessed a trick in the same way as those who witnessed the magician's performance witnessed a trick.

You've expanded "flyover witness" to include everyone who witnessed the "trick" of the plane crashing into the Pentagon. ("Semantics" indeed). As a result, you now have 100 or so "flyover witnesses". Congrats.

No, Roberts did not witness the impact. The trick was to convince him that a plane had impacted the building and that, therefore, he must have witnessed a different plane (e.g. the C-130). However, when we, as objective observers, examine the trick, and realize that the damage path is inconsistent with the reported flightpath and that no plane in the area could have been shadowing the alleged 600 mph 757, we realize that it must have been a flyover. Like I said, this is not absolute, and is subject to change as more data comes in.

 

[D'rok]

No, Roberts did not witness the impact.

I didn't say that he did. But since he witnessed neither the impact nor the flyover, he's not a great witness for your cause.

The trick was to convince him that a plane had impacted the building and that, therefore, he must have witnessed a different plane (e.g. the C-130). However, when we, as objective observers, examine the trick, and realize that the damage path is inconsistent with the reported flightpath and that no plane in the area could have been shadowing the alleged 600 mph 757, we realize that it must have been a flyover. Like I said, this is not absolute, and is subject to change as more data comes in.

I think your definition of "objective observers" deviates somewhat from standard usage.

What is really going on is that you are an advocate for a particular version of the facts. An objective trier of facts - aka a judge - would examine your submissions to see if you have met the standard of proof, which, in this case would be to raise a reasonable doubt about the "official version" of the attack. So far, you have failed dramatically. Handwaving away all the evidence that contradicts you is not good for your case.

 

[e^n]

e^n, do you agree that Reheat's model is definitely inaccurate?

Reheat's model is an investigative model, I don't particularly agree with the more extreme flight paths but he has constructed it according to witness accounts. You can dispute this with him if you like.

My model is an analytical model, I am trying to find the minimum bank angle that the plane could physically have used, and if witness accounts do not mention this bank angle then such a flight path likely did not occur.

Reheat and I are looking at this from a different point of view, so while our flight paths radically differ, the laws of physics applied do not. Feel free to take any mid point between my model and his and I will do the maths for you and tell you exactly what is required.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

You are speculating by saying 'vectored thrust'. We have no evidence these systems even exist yet you are willing to claim that somehow this disproves this model?

It does not, and unless you are going to start producing some data this is akin to saying "But if it had intertial dampeners it would be unaffected by acceleration".

But if we make a model that does not consider *all* possible technology we can't say the calculations are "aircraft independent". Do you agree that this is disingenuous on Reheat's part?

I am not claiming it is impossible, simply that the laws of physics and flight dictate the plane must have banked an excessive amount to carry out any section of the maneuver. Nobody reports these banks, therefore it's likely it did not carry out this maneuver.

What is your least severe bank angle?

You seem to be agreeing that nobody mentions these bank angles. I assume you are aware of Sean Boger.

I said the only one who mentions a *slight* bank angle is Morin. Did you watch the trailer- pretty steep angle, huh?

Lets forget for a moment that they don't have anywhere near 13 north side accounts, as you can see Craig is relying on the most unreliable of evidence to prove his case. Aerodynamics, Physics and simple logic play no part in any disproof he can imagine. I disagree.

There are three ways to falsify CIT's theory:
1)Demonstrate CIT led the witnesses. (This is the simplest and easiest method. No Jrefers have attempted this, though many nevertheless claim this the case).
2)Find a greater number of witnesses who contradict CIT's witnesses. (This is not as unreliable as you think. No technical data would be required from witnesses-only whether or not they saw the plane on the north or south side of the gas station, or over the FOB or South of Columbia. You don't even have to travel to Arlington to interview them- you can call them and record the interview. This can be verified by anyone and is fairly simple to do (note: you can look up neighbors in the whitepages to possibly discover undiscovered witnesses)).
3)If you want to discuss physics, why not discuss whether or not the Pentagon physical damage is consistent with a 757 impact?(This has the advantage over discussing flight paths since it is not based on subjective witness testimonies. The disadvantage is that this issue is already extremely polarized- but who knows- if the conditions are agreed upon perhaps there can be a fruitful discussion on even this issue).
Thanks for answering my question about Reheat's model. Here are a few others :
1)Do you think all of these people couldn't accurately judge what side of the gas station/ columbia pike/ side of the river the Plane flew over?
2)Why has CIT found no witness that contradicts these findings?
3)Do you agree that Reheat's analysis is unscientific in the since that he admits he has "won", and dismisses all criticism from CIT, PFT, and me with the non sequitur "Where's your math?"?

 

[The Big Dog]

There are three ways to falsify CIT's theory:
1)Demonstrate CIT led the witnesses. (This is the simplest and easiest method. No Jrefers have attempted this, though many nevertheless claim this the case).
2)Why has CIT found no witness that contradicts these findings?

1. At your request I quoted Pickering way up there ^^ accusing CIT of doing just that. Funny, you ignored it.

2. Why has CIT not found any contrary witnesses? Is that a joke? Every one of their own witnesses is a contrary witness.

Anyhow, I have thought of another way to falsify CIT's claims: what if we were to find witnesses who testified that the plane hit the Pentagon?

What do ya think?

 

[Caustic Logic]

Please quote the entire paragraph:
"You see, I never considered that since we have multiple NOC witnesses and only one parallel to the annex witness. Since Morin agreed in all other respects with the NOC witnesses and, in fact, could only have seen what he saw if the NOC was correct, it seemed reasonable that the specific parallel claim was an approximation. If you disagree, perhaps you'd like to give reasons why Morin should be held above the entire body witness testimony."

There, fixed that for you. Unless you are saying you have considered that the plane was South of the Citgo, and seriously, I'll have to consider my response absolutely relevant.

[QUOTE[It seems unlikely that he saw the tail at impact if the plane was NOC, but he wouldn't have been able to see it at SOC either. [/QUOTE]
True! He'd see it most of the way but not to the very end. Check it folks, lateral and vertical line of sight. He did lose it behind some trees. He'd see nothing of course if it was NoC, on the other side of the Annex descending like Lagasse said from 150 AGL to 0 AGL.

Morin (in his MSM interview) says that the plane flew both "over the FOB" and "over him and the outer edge of the Annex". Which claim is correct?

The one he actually said. You lack the sophistication to maintain this game. Boring! To the garden now.

 

[bje]

TheLoneBedouin has a valuable mission

2)Find a greater number of witnesses who contradict CIT's witnesses. (This is not as unreliable as you think. No technical data would be required from witnesses-only whether or not they saw the plane on the north or south side of the gas station, or over the FOB or South of Columbia. You don't even have to travel to Arlington to interview them- you can call them and record the interview. This can be verified by anyone and is fairly simple to do (note: you can look up neighbors in the whitepages to possibly discover undiscovered witnesses)).

3)If you want to discuss physics, why not discuss whether or not the Pentagon physical damage is consistent with a 757 impact?(This has the advantage over discussing flight paths since it is not based on subjective witness testimonies.

TLB,

You're a little behind on this but you can now provide a great service.

Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and Ray Balsamo have each been repeatedly asked by numerous posters for the last 2 years to provide the statements of the 1,000+ eyewitnesses who saw, or moved, or recovered the wreckage from the interior of the Pentagon, or who sorted it openly on the lawn, in the hours, days, and weeks after 9/11.

I personally have asked all three to do this repeatedly, reminding them that to be true investigators, that their Citizens Investigation Team must interview ALL eyewitnesses.

All three of them have steadfastly refused to provide any of theose key eyewitness statements to us as requested. Each of them has steadfastly refused to conduct any interview of these key people.

Noting that the wreckage was seen or handled by these 1,000+ people and that the nature of the wreckage is key evidence as is the testimony of these people, it is, of course, vital to record the evidence.

Now that you are on record as agreeing with me here in this thread that ALL evidence is on the table, that ALL eyewitnesses in ANY investigation should be interviewed and their statements recorded, that you agree that funadamental issue is whether or not AA77 hit the Pentagon, and that all of the evidence surrounding the "incident" at the Pentagon must be investigated, then I will ask you to ask those at CIT why they refuse to interview these 1,000+ key eyewitnesses and provide their statements.

Furthermore, I will ask you when they intend to do these interviews and, since you agree with the necessity of doing a thorough investigation, if you will take the lead in doing a proper investigation?

 

[uruk]

What law of physics prevents objects from travelling north of the citgo?

Mass, acceleration, g-forces, material stresses, and aerodynamics. If some super secret, custom made variable geometry aircraft was used it would have to be of similar configuration to a comercial airliner. I don't think Legasse or Morin would have confused a F111, F14, or a B1 bomber for a commercial airliner. And in those cases the variable geometry wing are to increase lift at slower speeds and reduce drag at higher speeds.

Its possible he could see it if the plane went further right and higher than the official version. The official version is impossible.

It would have disappeared behind wing 8 according to your diagram. He doesnt say he lost sight of it untill he saw the fireball.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Adios.

I knew it was silly to get involved in discussing something with a CIT clone.

There's a monomaniacal factor in CIT and Pffft that no other sub-faction even comes close to. Uncle Fetzer, at least, when cornered knows that he's cornered and changes the topic to avoid the unpleasantness. CIT just hand-wave away anything that doesn't support their a priori NoC nonsense.

 

[twinstead]

Until somebody presents this 'slam-dunk' evidence to somebody who can do something about it, Pentagon no planers are worthy only of contempt--the internet version of the crazy old man with wild eyes telling anybody who will listen that the world is coming to an end.

 

[Wolrab]

This whole shebang is based on people's recollections of an event that happened years ago and lasted less than five or ten seconds (probably less)? Someone has way too much time on their hands.....I recommend twoofers should use the internet for what it was originally designed for. Just lock the basement door so mom don't spoil the moment.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

I didn't say that he did. But since he witnessed neither the impact nor the flyover, he's not a great witness for your cause.

Roosevelt is an excellent witness. He saw the "commercial airliner" immediately after the explosion- it fits perfectly with the rest of the data. Unless you have a better theory, Roosevelt saw the flyover.
Just to put the final nail in the "he saw the C130" theory- here is the position of the C130 at time of impact according to the RADES data:



And here is a closeup of the C130 path- notice that it turns away before reaching the Pentagon.

I think your definition of "objective observers" deviates somewhat from standard usage.

What is really going on is that you are an advocate for a particular version of the facts. An objective trier of facts - aka a judge - would examine your submissions to see if you have met the standard of proof, which, in this case would be to raise a reasonable doubt about the "official version" of the attack. So far, you have failed dramatically. Handwaving away all the evidence that contradicts you is not good for your case.

Oh, the irony. You want to talk about handwaving? How about Reheat with his ridiculous fabricated calculations. How about AW Smith with his "Lagasse couldn't see the plane because there was a canopy in his way" lie (and its not even a good lie since it clear from the video that he had a completely unobstructed view of both the North and South sides of the Citgo)? How about Caustic Logic and others ignoring Morin's "fob flyover" statement? And worst of all how about Foolmewunz's claim that Robert's actually saw the wtc impact on television (which is so stupid that I'm surprised no Jrefers called him out on it).
The fact is, CIT has never handwaved any evidence. All is taken into consideration. The claim that 100's of people saw the impact is simply untrue since most were not even on the impact side of the Pentagon. The NOC claim is true rather than the impact claim for several specific reasons:
1)Many of the witnesses said that they couldn't actually see what the plane did in the last few moments.
2)There is a flyover witness.
3)There are other witness suggestive of a flyover (a "2nd jet" (deduced since they were far away from the Pentagon) flew away from the explosion).
4)The witnesses were physically closer to the NOC.
5)The physical damage is inconsistent with the official story.
6)People were pre-conditioned to expect a plane impact (two had already hit the towers and the "impact" into the Pentagon was repeated again and again in the days following the attack on the MSM), whereas they were not pre-conditioned to accept the official flight path (none of the witnesses knew the implications of their observations).

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

This whole shebang is based on people's recollections of an event that happened years ago and lasted less than five or ten seconds (probably less)?

Wrong. Roberts, the flyover witness, recorded his observations just days after the attack.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Mass, acceleration, g-forces, material stresses, and aerodynamics. If some super secret, custom made variable geometry aircraft was used it would have to be of similar configuration to a comercial airliner. I don't think Legasse or Morin would have confused a F111, F14, or a B1 bomber for a commercial airliner. And in those cases the variable geometry wing are to increase lift at slower speeds and reduce drag at higher speeds.

None of these things prohibit objects from going NOC. What you really mean is "757's cannot travel Reheat's imaginary flight path".

It would have disappeared behind wing 8 according to your diagram. He doesnt say he lost sight of it untill he saw the fireball.

He wouldn't have been able to see it SOC either. This detail seems like an embellishment.

 

[SDC]

TLB, you don't know the meaning of the word "irony." There is not much point in using the word, in that case.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

TLB,

You're a little behind on this but you can now provide a great service.

Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and Ray Balsamo have each been repeatedly asked by numerous posters for the last 2 years to provide the statements of the 1,000+ eyewitnesses who saw, or moved, or recovered the wreckage from the interior of the Pentagon, or who sorted it openly on the lawn, in the hours, days, and weeks after 9/11.

Both CIT and PFT are primarily concerned with the plane's flight path. However, who says they haven't been looking for such witnesses. Most important would be the FBI agents seen moving debris and around Loyd England's car. CIT have publicly stated their desire to interview them- if you know their names, pm me.

All three of them have steadfastly refused to provide any of theose key eyewitness statements to us as requested. Each of them has steadfastly refused to conduct any interview of these key people.

Source?