Regarding 'Debunking the North of the Citgo Theory'

[HyJinX]

WOW...koo koo, koo koo.

 

[Reheat]

Here are the two main points of your opening post along with the unanswered rebuttals that make your presence here a folly for multiple pages over a 3 day period. Essentially, all you've done is waste everyone's time and prove that you are nothing but an ATTENTION WHORE. You have proven yourself an utter failure as I have seen absolutely nothing of worthy attention and I have no inclination to change anything at all in my paper. Congratulation on your utter failure to accomplish anything other than to embarrass yourself (if you had any pride at all) and waste everyone's time.

Opening Post point # 1

1) Incorrect interpretation of Morin's account.
Reheat's analysis is completely dependent on Morin's statement that:
"The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB).",

Later reply...

I interpret "outer portion of the FOB" to mean end of 'right wing parallel to the edge of the Annex'.

As I told you previous several pages back, you've just validated my flight path. Although it's not exact to a millimeter accuracy it's close enough that ALL of the calculations still apply.

FAILURE

Opening Post point # 2

2)The Calculations are *Not* Aircraft Independent.
The author claims "[w]ithin the large transport category of aircraft that witnesses described, the calculations are specific aircraft type independent". He reasons that "ince ALL fixed wing aircraft are subject to the same bank angle and G forces in turns, the specific type of aircraft does not matter for the those numbers posted in the chart". He goes on to claim "variable wing geometry or a morphed wing using futuristic memory shape alloy metals would be subject to the same bank angle and G requirements".
But this is a contradiction. These designs are not fixed wing aircraft- the bank angles and g forces would depend on the specific shape of the wing in time. Pre-911 examples of these designs are capable of the suggested flight paths. Furthermore, technology such as thrust vectoring have been used for decades with similar increases in maneuverability. It is an absurdity to state that no aircraft could fly the proposed flight paths.

Fixed wing versus rotary wing is a common description of craft with things extending laterally from the fuselage. Any argument otherwise is quibbling with minutiae. Variable geometry to include morphed technology aircraft are commonly referred to as fixed wing aircraft. Only the stall speed changes for the variable geometry of the wings. All of your other statements regarding aerodynamics are ignorant and false. The absurdity is, not only, could an aircraft not fly the proposed flight paths, but that no one including you have been able to show that they could and match what the witnesses said in over two (2) years!

FAILURE


ETA:You are now on ignore.....

 

[bje]

Both CIT and PFT are primarily concerned with the plane's flight path.

You've already agreed with me that that "the fundamental issue is whether or not AA77 hit the Pentagon, and that all of the evidence surrounding the 'incident' at the Pentagon must be investigated." So you agree that neither CIT nor PFT can ignore any evidence, TLB. So, this is the evidence they need to address: ALL of it.

However, who says they haven't been looking for such witnesses.

Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and Rob Balsamo. They've said so many times on many forums. Are you saying that you do not KNOW they refuse to interview those witnesses, TLB? I think you should ask them WHY they are keeping you in the dark about crucial evidence, don't you?

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.

No, you've already agreed publicly in this thread that ALL witnesses should ne interviewed and you cannot say one witness is more important than another WITHOUT having ALL the eyewitness testimony. You also wrote right here in this thread:

"....perhaps you'd like to give reasons why Morin should be held above the entire body of witness testimony."

"Cit ignores no witnesses- not all of the witnesses wish to be interviewed. Independent verification is important- you cannot trust second-hand accounts."

So you see that CIT ignored over 1,000 key eyewitnesses and why you need to provide the statements from these eyewitnesses that CIT and PFT refuse to interview.

TLB, don't you see how you have been duped by Ranke, Marquis, and Balsamo? You made it clear to me that you KNOW what an investigation needs to accomplish yet you defend those who refuse to conduct a proper investigation according to every standard in an investigators book, namely CIT and PFT.

Why do you think you that is, TLB?

Source?

Ranke, Balsamo, and Marquis. Just ask them, TLB, and report back what they said. And then ponder why they each have lied to you.

Again, since you know the requirements of doing a proper investigation, which is what I ascertained from questionning you, you are now in the best position to confront CIT and PFT and lead a new investigation.

Are you willing to step up to the plate, TLB?

 

[Bobert]

This thread is very very telling.
It is a good indicator that the CIT frauds are getting virtually NO ATTENTION on the truther forums so to drum up a little business they have to come over to JREF.
Like cockroaches.

 

[Calcas]

The point is, if such technology was used, it necessarily wouldn't be public technology.

Here is the crux of why your band of idiots are failing.

An argument like this is so full of fail that I don't even have the time or inclination to go into it.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and Rob Balsamo. They've said so many times on many forums. Are you saying that you do not KNOW they refuse to interview those witnesses, TLB? I think you should ask them WHY they are keeping you in the dark about crucial evidence, don't you?

Just checked their forum- that's not true:

He's wrong.

We have spoken with many first responders.

We don't limit our investigation.

Nothing anyone who was on the scene saw after the event refutes the body of evidence we have presented proving a military deception.

 

[A W Smith]

This thread is very very telling.
It is a good indicator that the CIT frauds are getting virtually NO ATTENTION on the truther forums so to drum up a little business they have to come over to JREF.
Like cockroaches.
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:NhDw2-FZw5PlAM:http://bp0.blogger.com/_rLV-

Attention whoring combined with damage control. Instead of filing lawsuits or going to mass media they come here,

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

As I told you previous several pages back, you've just validated my flight path. Although it's not exact to a millimeter accuracy it's close enough that ALL of the calculations still apply.

And as I told you it had to be an approximation or it would have impacted the building at a different wedge. This agrees with his later claim that it flew over the FOB:

Many of the FOB people had been looking at the news reports flowing out of the attack on the World Trade Center Towers, going about their normal work routine as they watched. Maybe half or a bit more already knew of the New York attacks. However, within seconds of the impact -- less than a minute after the FOB flyover-- several thousand people started exiting the FOB.”

Your calculations don't apply- they never did.

 

[pomeroo]

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


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.

Ah, we have a concession speech! Whenever the liars are reduced to accusing the people who are trouncing them of lying, the ballgame is over.

Let's try it again, fraud:

There are hundreds of people who observed a plane hit the Pentagon, roughly a hundred of whom are on record.

Absolutely NOBODY observed a plane swoop down, head toward the Pentagon, and then pull up at the last moment.

Wreckage of Flight 77 was found inside the Pentagon and on the lawn.

The remains of the passengers and crew of Flight 77 were identified by DNA testing conducted at the Dover Port Mortuary.

If you are charging the FBI with complicity in your imaginary conspiracy, SHOW US YOUR EVIDENCE (hint: You have NONE).

 

[pomeroo]

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.

Source?

The simpleminded frauds of the CIT always run, tails between their legs, from this question:

What happens when you ask a witness who alleges that he saw a plane hit the Pentagon while describing an impossible flight path to abandon one or both of his mutually-exclusive positions?

Yes, we know that nobody ever asks that question. But WHY HAVEN'T THE FRAUDS ASKED THAT QUESTION?

 

[beachnut]

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

Here is a witness CIT uses! He sees 77 hit the Pentagon. A CIT witness debunks you, and CIT failed made up conclusions. Kind of makes you and CIT conclusions a lie! As for p4t, they have ZERO theories, and they tell you so!

Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief - "I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building." "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."

Which part of

"... I just watched it hit the building." ...

, do you not understand?


Your failed ideas, proven wrong on 9/11! How is that for debunking, Sean debunks you from 9/11! As do hundreds of people. No need to debunk your ideas, you were debunked on 9/11. So you are evidnece free, is that a good thing?

 

[WildCat]

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

Neither does Alanis Morisette, and it never stopped her...

 

[D'rok]

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.

I may have missed it, but where did he say "commercial airliner"? He simply said "plane" did he not?

You have a witness who says he saw "another plane flying around the south parking lot." By his own testimony, he did not witness any flyover. Need I remind you that your initial claim was "dozens" of flyover witnesses? You are doing very badly.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_261844887b78e893aa.jpg

..snip..

2)There is a flyover witness.

..snip..

Only a complete fraud would make such a statement.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Sometimes saying "I watched it hit the building" can mean "It flew right over the building without touching it".

Pass the bong please.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Which part of
"... I just watched it hit the building." ...
do you not understand?

Boger watched it make a right bank from the North side of the Citgo. He saw this for a greater amount of time than any of the Citgo witnesses, since he was facing the plane. There's no way he could have mistaken this for the straight SOC path into the Pentagon. Its more reasonable that Boger hit the deck before "impact" and merely deduced it later. Would you have stood their and watched as a plane was coming right for you?

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

I may have missed it, but where did he say "commercial airliner"? He simply said "plane" did he not?

In the CIT interview he specifies that the plane he saw was a "commercial airliner" with "jet engines". Listen.

You have a witness who says he saw "another plane flying around the south parking lot." By his own testimony, he did not witness any flyover.

So- he was tricked. Once one looks at the data it becomes clear that Robert's is a flyover witness.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Ah, so not only are the CIT claims based on the weakest form of evidence, but they are based on their assumptions of what they think witnesses may have seen in order to fit the CIT pre-determined conclusion.

And the media doesn't take you guys seriously? How can that be??

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

What happens when you ask a witness who alleges that he saw a plane hit the Pentagon while describing an impossible flight path to abandon one or both of his mutually-exclusive positions?

Yes, we know that nobody ever asks that question. But WHY HAVEN'T THE FRAUDS ASKED THAT QUESTION?

Because that question is flawed. Didn't you read Reheat's paper? I'll quote it for you:

less than a minute after THE FOB FLYOVER

According to Reheat, every witness statement should be taken literally, and since he didn't model a flyover, there is no impossible flight path.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

If someone thinks that Reheat says that every witness should be taken literally, then that person is the biggest idiot ever to float around the earth. My God the level o stupid is astounding.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Ah, so not only are the CIT claims based on the weakest form of evidence, but they are based on their assumptions of what they think witnesses may have seen in order to fit the CIT pre-determined conclusion.

Maybe if you had a modicum of objectivity you'd see how wrong your position is. Did Boger hallucinate the right bank north of the Citgo? How could he possibly mistake the official flight path, which never even crossed Columbia Pike, for a hard right bank from the Citgo gas station? Are you willing to say all this was a hallucination? What about Roberts? Are you willing to say his observation of a jet immediately after the attack was a hallucination? Or did Boger simply duck when the plane flew towards him, as human reaction would dictate?