Regarding 'Debunking the North of the Citgo Theory'

[TheLoneBedouin]

R. Mackey, since you are viewing the forum and claim to be a scientist, could you point out what is incorrect about post 231? Thanks.

 

[R.Mackey]

My credentials are very easy to verify. Not, of course, that it matters. Arguments to authority aren't worth much.

The post you linked contains a great deal of bickering. I can't figure out what it is you'd like me to evaluate. If you have a more specific question for me, please feel free to restate it. Thanks.

 

[beachnut]

R. Mackey, since you are viewing the forum and claim to be a scientist, could you point out what is incorrect about post 231? Thanks.

I am a pilot and an engineer, but I only need grade school skills to point out your incorrect stuff.

You have no idea what parallel means. Do you need more?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

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?

Hey kid

Do just the slightest bit on eyewitness testimony and why it is not used in science and maybe you will stop being surprised at why everyone is laughing at your premise.

One thing you can't deny is that it's impossible for all the eyewitness testimony to be correct, do you not agree? Your determination for which ones are right an wrong are not based on any kind of facts, but rather your pre-determined opinion. This is why you aren't taken seriously. You have many serious scientists on this forum and that kind of behavior of yorus is a sign of an amateur since real scientists are all very familiar with how unreliable eyewitness testimony is. Including reheat. You claiming that he is saying that all witnesses should be taken literally is very ironic and shows you have no understanding o what he is saying.

you can ask and hypothesize all day long as to what those people were thinking. That's why real scientists don't use eyewitness testimony and that is why it is deemed as the weakest form of evidence. In this case you are trying to use the weakest form of evidence to dismiss the strongest forms of evidence. Again, this is why you aren't taken seriously. That's what frauds do, not scientists.

 

[beachnut]

... , 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?

Boger never said hard right bank in his statement in 2001. This is good, there was no hard right bank! You have been fooled by CIT! Funny, you spew the exact junk CIT spoon fed you. Are you always such a good follower and spew the party line without evidence or checking the story made up by CIT quote mining and pure incompetence. You should check the FDR to see Boger saw no giant bank angle. Sorry, but you have been had!

Boger had no time to react, the plane was going over 780 feet per second. You have not studied this topic either?

Boger saw 77 hit the Pentagon.

Many people saw 77 hit the Pentagon! You are suffering from a hallucination and repeat only what CIT has made up.

This is Boger statement from 2001, it debunks you and CIT fantasy world.

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." 2001

Again, which part of

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

do you fail to understand?

Debunked by Sean, in 2001. Why do you persist at making up lies and calling Sean a liar?

Only a C-130 flew by the Pentagon immediately after 77 impacted; proven by hard evidence; so someone mistook a C-130 for an airliner! What is new?
You fail to do the minimum research to get anything right.
To use witness statements you need to thoroughly understand flying and investigation procedures for aircraft accidents. Your statements prove you have zero understanding of 9/11, flying and other skills needed to solve 9/11. CIT and you have not had any course in aircraft accident investigation or with understanding witness statements. As I said without an extensive understanding of flying and aircraft accidents, the assessments you make are worthless Your ideas on this subject are lacking credibility as you clearly make up all your conclusions based on your biases learn in your teen years. You lack of knowledge in aircraft accident investigation and witness interrogation. You change and make up your own story of what the witness really saw, ignoring what he said he saw. You embellish the witness statements and create new stories, proven wrong by the testimony from 2001. You continue to diverge from reality without regard for what your own witnesses said over 6 years ago.

 

[twinstead]

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?

Oh my. Objectivity. That's the pot calling the kettle black. If you had an ounce of objectivity you would see how wrong YOUR position is.

 

[D'rok]

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

So, you admit yet again that he didn't witness any flyover and that you are simply making assumptions.

I'm curious as to how the "flyover plane" managed to fly over the impact on the west side of the pentagon and then show up seconds after "flying around the south parking lot" for Roberts to witness. I know nothing about aeronautics, but I'm willing to bet my left nut that that's an impossible move.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

One thing you can't deny is that it's impossible for all the eyewitness testimony to be correct, do you not agree? Your determination for which ones are right an wrong are not based on any kind of facts

No, I listed some in a previous post.

That's why real scientists don't use eyewitness testimony

Eyewitness testimony is used in courts to supplement the physical evidence.

In this case you are trying to use the weakest form of evidence to dismiss the strongest forms of evidence.

No, both complement each other, see the above link.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Boger never said hard right bank in his statement in 2001.

Duh- he wasn't asked about flight path. He does say "it was coming right at us", which would be on the NOC path.

This is good, there was no hard right bank!

Tell that to Boger. Whitepages.com

Again, which part of
Quote:
"… I just watched it hit the building."...
do you fail to understand?

Again:

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?

Only a C-130 flew by the Pentagon immediately after 77 impacted; proven by hard evidence; so someone mistook a C-130 for an airliner! What is new?

No, according to the Rades data the C130 turned over the Navy annex before even reaching the Pentagon. Rades also puts the C130 nowhere near the Pentagon at the time of the alleged impact anyway. Is this the 'hard evidence' you were refering to?

You change and make up your own story of what the witness really saw, ignoring what he said he saw.

No, everything the witness said is reported. When two claims are mutually exclusive the entire body of witness testimony is evaluated to determine which claim is true. POV is also taken into consideration. Its disingenuous to claim CIT is ignoring what the witnesses saw.

 

[The Big Dog]

AH! TLB continues CIT's long standing and completely ridiculous cherry picking of their own witnesses testimony. This is what makes the CIT the laughingstock of the Twoof movement.

"Or did Boger simply duck when the plane flew towards him, as human reaction would dictate?"

Well he said he watched the plane auger into the side of the Pentagon, but I guess CIT decides when Boger is telling the truth and when he is not?

Well, let us once again accept the CIT's theory, and put it to the math test. LDB, kindly describe the forces on the plane that allowed it to pull out of the bank north of the CITGO, arrest the descent, and pull up and over the Pentagon. I am not even going to bother to ask you to explain how in god’s name Boger, and the folks at the CITGO missed this, of course.

So make with the math, TLB!

(man, how many times have we asked him, CIT and Pffft for their math??)

 

[Reheat]

So make with the math, TLB!

(man, how many times have we asked him, CIT and Pffft for their math??)

But,.... but,..... but,..... you're not being fair. How dare you ask for math. What audacity you have! Don't you realize that you can't BS with math, except when it's in error, such as 11.2 G type of error.

Why, you're just being a mindless dolt by repeatedly asking for math and not addressing the real issues. You know the delusion can not continue if proper math is applied, so stop your nonsense and get with it or your NWO Card will be canceled!

 

[robeeb]

I am a pilot and an engineer, but I only need grade school skills to point out your incorrect stuff.

You have no idea what parallel means. Do you need more?

Beachnut, I am a pilot, and engineer as well. You hit the nail on the head-it only takes basic gradeschool skills to see all the incorrect information this person (TLB) is trying to pass off as "facts". In my relatively short time here at JREF, I've quickly learned something. These so called truthers are absolutely impossible people to communicate with. None of them posess any expertise in the areas needed to prove their claims. In fact, I was reading some older posts here and it would seem that truthers don't even verify the credentials of those amongst them who claim to be engineers, pilots, etc. I'm referring to a story about a person called Mr. Mike Rotch.

Truthers seem to be only interested in the physical act of "the argument" rather than getting past that and actually looking at facts and making a reasonable deduction. The irony is, if there actually had been a govt conspiracy on 9-11, the truthers would not have even the basic skills to identify evidence, let alone use that evidence to bring the perpetrators to justice. They home in on minute scraps of info and rumors, and completely miss the bigger picture. They would step over a ten dollar bill, to pick up a dime. This leads me to believe that attempting to communicate with them is an exercise in futility. How sad it is that there are people in the world whose only purpose, only identity, comes from lies perpetuated by people who are only out to sell T-shirts, DVD's, and books filled with "research" that is a total scam.

They will keep perpetuating lies, becoming more and more frustrated with the world for "not getting it". And one day, the news story will no longer be about truthers heckling, trespassing, and assaulting people. It will be about a truther who decided to emulate the actions of Timothy McVeigh. Sad.

 

[T.A.M.]

You know I would love, absolutely love, to see and hear?

The reaction of SERIOUS, REAL LIFE, law enforcement officers, when this crowd of nuts presents their "Theories" about the FDR, NoC, etc...

Can you imagine the laughter and head shaking?

TAM

 

[beachnut]

No, according to the Rades data the C130 turned over the Navy annex before even reaching the Pentagon. Rades also puts the C130 nowhere near the Pentagon at the time of the alleged impact anyway. Is this the 'hard evidence' you were refering to?

Oops, the C-130 was over the Pentagon! When you look up and see an airplane in the sky, it is over you! It is a figure of speech, you lack basic skills in understanding witness statements, and matching them with facts. Fact is only the C-130 came close to the Pentagon, as in "over", after 77 impacted. The impact of 77 was seen by many people, of which you must call a liars to have your failed fantasy! Proven wrong on 9/11, and with testimony given in 2001. You and CIT have failed to make a case and you are exposing yourself as a false information specialist not able to learn the basic skills to understand 9/11.

View from the C-130, notice how all the witnesses can see the C-130 flyby so easy! u b wrong again. But cheer up, you have company in your delusional world of wrong with CIT!

It is hard for a plane to see straight down, so the C-130 flew right next to the Pentagon. It was the C-130 that people saw, I have proof it was seen right after the impact of 77, and I have witnesses who knew it was a C-130, and confirm the hard data. One guy tried to calm people down who were running off from their cars for cover scared that the C-130 was coming to attack, as the C-130 flew "over". You are funny, I am learning about 9/11, and you are sinking into pure fantasy and clinging to the chains and very heavy anchor of pure ignorance on 9/11. I am learning, you are spewing lies. Cool. See, I can't debunk you, those who experienced 9/11 debunk you, I am just an observer, sitting here watching you fail.

This is the view the C-130 had, he can see the impact area. If you fly right over the impact point you can not see through the floor of plane! Funny how that works! Your ideas is not correct, you need to study more, or something. Are all your ideas wrong?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

No, I listed some in a previous post.

And as I already said, you conclusion as to which ones are right an wrong are based on your pre-determined conclusion of what happened before you even knew what people claimed.

Eyewitness testimony is used in courts to supplement the physical evidence.

And it's the weakest form of evidence in science. And thus if this were a scientific presentation in a court case, your evidence would not be taken seriously. All these arguments going on about what ech person meant or what they might have seen comes down to your personal opinion. And in court your opinion means nothing and in science your opinion means even less.

Why do you suppose it is that no one has filed a lawsuit kiddo? What's the hold up? It's because this kind of evidence amounts to nothing more than hearsay and is simply not reliable. You wouldn't even be able to get a trial because one look at your evidence and it would be thrown out. And probably with prejudice due to the absolute absurdity of it. Don't believe me? file a lawsuit instead of sitting on an internet form and let us know how it coes.

No, both complement each other, see the above link.

No they don't. You simply impose what you want in order to achieve the outcome that you decided. Thus when someone who disagrees with you does the exact same thing you do yet with a totally opposite outcome, you seem to think it's because of their method. The irony being it's YOUR method. You're perfectly fine with your method so long as it produces the results you decided you wanted, But when it does the opposite, you are against it.

Again, this is why you aren't taken seriously outside of cult tabloids like PFT. This is why you can't get any media to take you seriously and why no one is able to write any white paper or file a lawsuit. Fooling yourself is fine for your own little world. The problem is that the rest of the world is not in your fantasy.

 

[bje]

Just checked their forum- that's not true:

Yes, it is true. Ranke, Marquis, and Balsamo purposely did not interview any of the 1,000+ witnesses to the wreckage. They said so.

Originally Posted by Craig Ranke CIT
He's wrong.

We have spoken with many first responders.

We don't limit our investigation.

Names? Statements? Dates?

Craig Ranke presented one statement from a fire chief who gave his first impressions before ever getting into the wreckage area inside the Pentagon:

"However we do have an interview with a fire captain who was part of the efforts who has been on 5 plane crashes in his career and doesn't believe for a second that the plane hit the building."

Exactly one. Expressing his "belief", nothing more. No evidence.

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

CIT never interviewed them. Craig Ranke made it clear that he wasn't going to interview ANY actual eyewitnesses to the wreckage.

"...everyone knows there was very little "wreckage" found and reported."

"There was very little 'wreckage'. It was easily planted and blown from the obliterated construction trailers."

"There is no proof the remains are really from a 757 at all let alone one that hit the building."

"If you are suggesting there is more wreckage it is your responsibility to provide evidence for it."

So, TLB, WHEN are you going to provide the statements from the 1,000+ key eyewitnesses whose testimony is key to an proper investigation and that CIT doesn't want anyone to know about?

Why do you let Ranke and Marquis lie to your face, TLB?

 

[The Big Dog]

TheLoneBedouin Eyewitness testimony is used in courts to supplement the physical evidence.

Pssssss, let me let you and the CIT boys in on a little secret about eyewitness testimony: you are not ordinarily allowed to impeach your own witness.

So when you put LaGasse up on the stand and he says, yep, the plane hit the Pentagon, you can't say "your testimony that the plane is not believable because you were duped by the big explosion" (I also think those jackasses at the CIT also have claimed that Lagasse was a plant who the govmint intended that the crack researchers of the CIT would discover at the CITGO, but they did not realize the NOC flight path would be THE smoking gun to ace MC, Waldo, and his sidekick, Peter Pan, a/k/a Lyte).

 

[uruk]

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

Just in the path derived from the CIT witnesses. Also why would a special craft be necessary anyway? According to CIT a great deal of planning and setup was perpetrated to fake an impact into the Pentagon. Why is a high tech custom aircraft warrented? As a matter of fact, why not just crash the airplane into the Pentagon for real? Why would it matter if the plane went north or south ogf the citgo if they would just crash the plane for real. There really is no reason to fake a crash when you are going to blow up the building anyway. It is supreme idiocy to fake it when you could do it for real.

You know why all this elaborate, idiotic clap trap the CIT made up is neccessary? Just so that the CIT witnesses testmony will fit thier pet story. No other reason.

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

Why would Morin need to embellish his story? If Morin is embellishing his story what would keep the other witnesses from embellishing thier story? LeGasse even admited to altering or embellishing his story. Specifically the part about being blown into his car from the engine wash.

 

[Bobert]

Anybody with even a small amount of brain cells can tell that TLB is somehow connected to the CIT.
Craig however is playing dumb over at LCF acting as though he has no idea who TLB is.
He is using TLB
He is using TLB to draw attention to his pathetic little pentacon forum.
I guess that is more important then honoring those who died on 9-11 by getting his evidence to a court.
PATHETIC.

 

[nicepants]

Eyewitness testimony is used in courts to supplement the physical evidence.

No, both complement each other, see the above link.

Bolded some words for you.

When the eyewitness testimony is contradicted by the physical evidence...the physical evidence wins.

Tell me, Lone Bedouin...if there were, say, 10 witnesses who claimed that they were 100% sure that the plane hit a hotel and not the Pentagon, would that invalidate all of the evidence to the contrary?