Regarding 'Debunking the North of the Citgo Theory'

[TheLoneBedouin]

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

You make assumptions about everything you "witness", the question is whether those assumptions are valid. The rest of the data supports a flyover- got a better theory?

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.

Whether or not you consider the move impossible is irrelevant. The bottom line is that Roosevelt saw the plane immediately after the explosion indicating that the plane flew over the Pentagon.

 

[A W Smith]

You make assumptions about everything you "witness", the question is whether those assumptions are valid. The rest of the data supports a flyover- got a better theory?

yes flight 77 flew into the pentagon as Sean Boger stated , no DNA was faked. no light poles were faked, witnesses had the actual plane wreckage in their hands, Remains of flight 77 passengers were recovered inside the pentagon along with some of their personal possessions,

Whether or not you consider the move impossible is irrelevant. The bottom line is that Roosevelt saw the A plane immediately after the explosion indicating that the A plane flew over NEAR the Pentagon.

Fixed that for ya.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

TLB continues CIT's long standing and completely ridiculous cherry picking of their own witnesses testimony.

There is no cherry picking- the introduction to the movie plainly states both observations and asks the viewer to decide which one is true. CIT has determined that it must be the NOC path for several reasons that I have previously listed.

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?

Actually, yes. It is necessary to make a judgment when two claims are mutually exclusive. Boger supports the flyover because it would be practically impossible to mistake the official flight path for a slow bank from the north side of the citgo, and because he places the plane too high to be consistent with the physical damage.

Well, let us once again accept the CIT's theory, and put it to the math test.

This would be impossible, since we don't know the pertinent values. I've given three ways of falsifying CIT's findings- care to try one of those?

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.

CIT are detectives, not defense lawyers. The goal was to gather the evidence to the point that the implications could eventually be told to the witnesses. Brooks has already committed to the NOC path- how much will you bet that the others don't join him?

(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).

More braying from 16.5. Evidence?

 

[D'rok]

You make assumptions about everything you "witness", the question is whether those assumptions are valid. The rest of the data supports a flyover- got a better theory?

Whether or not you consider the move impossible is irrelevant. The bottom line is that Roosevelt saw the plane immediately after the explosion indicating that the plane flew over the Pentagon.

It's been fun. I'll give you props for being consistently civil. Definitely classier than your compadres over in the AA77 FDR thread.

 

[Matthew Best]

CIT are detectives, not defense lawyers.

Detectives?

Insert laughing dog here.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

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.

Did you miss the part about the C130 not being anywhere near the Pentagon at time of impact.

Furthermore, Roberts saw the commercial airliner on the East side of the Pentagon- the navy annex is on the west side.

View from the C-130, notice how all the witnesses can see the C-130 flyby so easy! u b wrong again.

Thanks for pointing out that all the witnesses could easily see the C-130. In fact, they all place the plane around Washington Mall in a Northwestern heading. This fatally contradicts the Rades data:


It is also in agreement with where O'brien said he was flying:

"When we took off, we headed north and west and had a beautiful view of the Mall," he said. "I noticed this airplane up and to the left of us, at 10 o'clock. He was descending to our altitude, four miles away or so. That's awful close, so I was surprised he wasn't calling out to us. It was like coming up to an intersection"

 

[beachnut]

You make assumptions about everything you "witness", the question is whether those assumptions are valid. The rest of the data supports a flyover- got a better theory?

Whether or not you consider the move impossible is irrelevant. The bottom line is that Roosevelt saw the plane immediately after the explosion indicating that the plane flew over the Pentagon.

I showed you the C-130 was over the Pentagon, and it is the only plane over the area after 77 impacts the Pentagon.

If you look up, from where your witness was, you see the C-130 right in the middle of your field of vision. Go out side, look up while standing up, and you are looking at the same angle the C-130 was right over the Pentagon. You are having problem making up ideas without training.

This is the view the C-130 had,

The only plane your witness can see after the Impact, right on his side of the building you even posted your own debunking.

Look at all the people on the ground who can see the C-130 right over them! Angle of view varies for each observer! Your fantasy is busted by radar data, and your own posting the C-130 flight path over the Pentagon, I have shown you how the C-130 is looking right down, and easy to see OVER the Pentagon. You could use Google earth to fly the C-130 flight path and see how it is seen over the Pentagon. Everyone knows when the are standing up, and they look up their center of vision is about 45 to 50 degree, BINGO, that is were the C-130 was for your witness. So sad to be debunked by your own diagram of the RADES data with all the planes in the area; proving the C-130 was the only plane!

Sorry, the time of the C-130 being over the Pentagon is longer than when it got to the point close to the Pentagon. The C-130 was visible following 77 for a long time! And visible enough to be over the Pentagon right after the impact, ATC asked them to follow 77, you may not understand over, and visible, but then, you are not trying to understand 9/11, you seem to support liars, making up junk ideas about 9/11. With real investigative skills you can take what you have, and prove it could only be a C-130, if you lack skills, you will not be able to figure it out. Go ahead support those who twist the truth, and ignore the evidence so you can feel good about the false ideas you have.

The truth is, the C-130 had people running right after 77 impacted the Pentagon on 9/11. I have presented the information, I bet you ignore it. Go ahead look down on the Pentagon from the flight path of the C-130, to see why people around the Pentagon thought another jet was coming. At least you think CIT is good at what they do, and you don't care if they lead to conclusions that are lies. That is what your posts tell me, you like false information and ignore facts.

Your witness saw the C-130, and if you do not agree, then you are calling other witnesses liars. I did not call your witness a liar, he saw the C-130 after 77 impacted the Pentagon. Those are the facts and they were backed up with you data if your understood it. The only reason this is fruitful for me, to take time and prove you wrong, is not to make your look foolish, but it lets me read about the people on 9/11, what they saw and the little things like people running from the C-130, and a vet, knowing it was safe, he calmed them down (that witness only saw a C-130, he knows what a C-130 looks like, no other plane). Learning about the people, the people you now must call a liar to have your twisted fantasy ideas work! I am a trained aircraft accident investigator, I have experience investigating aircraft accident, I have interviewed witnesses for real accidents, you are making major mistakes, but it only takes a grade school education to prove you wrong. Go ahead remain in fantasyland with uneducated non-investigators false ideas and conclusions as your source.

How many CIT witness know they are being used to generate lies?

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

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

Again, what all of the witnesses say fits the physical evidence perfectly.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

It's because this kind of evidence amounts to nothing more than hearsay and is simply not reliable.

Yes, when all of the witnesses unanimously report a simple observation it isn't reliable.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

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

Produce the quote or admit you're lying.

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

So, your above statement is a lie then?

CIT never interviewed them.

Then how did they receive this letter of appreciation?

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."

None of these quotes support the assertion that CIT "wasn't going to interview ANY eyewitnesses to the wreckage". The above evidence indicates just the opposite- so, BJE, are you going to produce the quote or admit you're lying?

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Just in the path derived from the CIT witnesses.

No, Terry Morin places the plane over the Navy annex.

Also why would a special craft be necessary anyway?

Its not- I brought up alternative technology to point out the absurdity of Reheat's "aircraft independent" claim.

According to CIT a great deal of planning and setup was perpetrated to fake an impact into the Pentagon.[...]As a matter of fact, why not just crash the airplane into the Pentagon for real?

Of course, speculation is useless- but it is possible that the conspirators needed complete assurance that whatever they wanted destroyed was destroyed (possibly the ONI command center).

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.

Unless they needed the damage to be precise.

Why would Morin need to embellish his story?

I don't follow- no one needs to embellish their stories.

If Morin is embellishing his story what would keep the other witnesses from embellishing thier story?

Nothing- but there is nothing to indicate they have embellished their stories. Just the opposite, in fact, since the salient points are all corroborated.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

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.

Of course, you have absolutely no evidence for this. No one is using me- believe it or not I'm simply a diligent 9/11 researcher who could see the absurdity of Reheat's 'paper'. Since I tend to dislike disinformation, I posted this simple critique. All I've seen in response so far are ridicule and evasion.
PATHETIC.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

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.

Do you agree that Reheat's method of constructing his model and his assertion that he "won and doesn't need to debate" is inconsistent with the principles of science?
Here's the relevant part of the post:

All anyone needs in the location of the aircraft at any specific time. Witnesses don't need to know any of those items.

But you did not even seek to define this variable. You used observations which lead to logical absurdities when taken literally. You patently ignored other observations which did not lead to such absurdities. Then you don't even address criticisms of your model and say "where's your math", indirectly indicating that your model is correct. Here's what a real scientist would have done:
Quote:
Building a Mathematical Model
1)Identify the problem
You attempt to identify the problem as "Is the NOC aerodynamically possible?", yet you do not study this exclusively. You also throw in Morin and Paik's testimony. You give precedence to Morin's account even when it contradicts both itself (if taken literally), Paik, and the NOC witnesses. You give no reason for preferring Morin- one can only assume it is because you set out to disprove CIT.
Quote:
define the terms in your problem
You do not attempt to define your variables, even when public information shows that they are wrong (e.g. the decoy jet being AA 77). You make no attempt to clarify these values with either CIT or PFt, and run away from their forums when challenged.
Quote:
2) Begin with a simple model, stating the assumptions that you make as you focus on particular aspects of the phenomenon.
You don't state your assumptions.
757=Decoy Jet is stated as a fact, when it is really an incorrect assumption.
You assume that some parts of witness testimony are completely objective while others are not- and you give no reason for this assumption!
You assume that one witness testimony, and a self-contradictory one at that, invalidates all other contrary testimony- and again you give no reason for this assumption. It sure looks like trying to deliberately build a model that produces your desired result.
Quote:
3) Identify important variables and constants and determine how they relate to each other.
Again, no attempt to define your variables.
Quote:
Verifying and Refining a Model

Once the model has been developed and applied to the problem, your resulting model solution must be analyzed and interpreted with respect to the problem. The interpretations and conclusions should be checked for accuracy by answering the following questions:

* Is the information produced reasonable?
* Are the assumptions made while developing the model reasonable?
* Are there any factors that were not considered that could affect the outcome?
* How do the results compare with real data, if available?
No attempt from either you or your Jref followers to ask any of these questions. In fact, when others ask these questions, you mindlessly repeat:
"Where's your math?", again not even addressing criticism of your model.
This isn't science.

I'm not the one who misinterpreted Morin's account, or Paik's either. They fit together nicely without your spins to make it what you want it to be.

Paik placed the plane over the FOB. That does not fit Morin's parallel claim. You are yet again blatantly lying to save your strawman paper.

I don't need to debate [...]I've already won.

That quote sums you up rather nicely.
To see how to do real research, please visit this page.

 

[beachnut]

Did you miss the part about the C130 not being anywhere near the Pentagon at time of impact.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13191
Furthermore, Roberts saw the commercial airliner on the East side of the Pentagon- the navy annex is on the west side.

Thanks for pointing out that all the witnesses could easily see the C-130. In fact, they all place the plane around Washington Mall in a Northwestern heading. This fatally contradicts the Rades data:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13192
It is also in agreement with where O'brien said he was flying:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13193

All your paths are lies, the RADES is correct and witnesses support that. This mean you are calling all the witnesses liars, and you must include the FAA and the military in your fantasy plot.

It has been shown the C-130 flew the departure than matches the RADES data exactly. If you were a pilot, or a good researcher this is the easy part. The C-130 debunks your other paths and proves CIT ideas are wrong. I am a pilot, but everyone here can look up this stuff and debunk your failed ideas.

O'Brien saw the Mall from the departure he was flying, the Mall is two miles long, you can see it from where the C-130 was flying. Which part of south are you unable to understand, the plane is in the air, we can see miles when we are climbing to 3000 feet! You have messed up this idea, or you fell for the lies of CIT, the untrained investigators. Since O'Brien does not support you, you messed up, now you are calling the FAA and the military liars?

And you have to call all the witnesses liar, you have interpreted their statements wrong. They support the RADES data.

So, your plot requires all the witnesses to be planted, the RADES data was planted, and you have zero evidence. Is that a good summary of your fantasy?


You need to look up the meaning of South, and learn about flying, you are making major errors and have to call the FAA and the military murderers. Is that cool with you? I was on active duty on 9/11, that means you are calling me a murderer of my own people because I stand by the FAA, and all the military on 9/11, all the people in the tower at Andrews and all the ATC people who can verify the RADES data, and what the C-130 did, and how there is no other plane but the C-130 near the Pentagon. So you are not a very good investigator, or a nice person to make up lies and spread them as if you had evidence.
You could look up the departure that is out of Andrews, they have to fly it correctly, and they did, it matches the RADES data. This has been debunked before. What school did CIT go to for their aircraft accident investigation course to learn how to use witness statements. They do not seem to be trained, they are making up conclusions not supported by their witnesses. Boger saw 77 hit the Pentagon, so did many others; how many people will you call liars to have a fantasy?

 

[Caustic Logic]

Okay, I will address this cause it's so easy.

Furthermore, Roberts saw the commercial airliner on the East side of the Pentagon- the navy annex is on the west side.

I agree he says commercial aircraft, and silver, which does not sound like a C-130. Please cite where you got the "east of" claim. Most specific thing I've seen is "over the lane one area." Which seems to be this, according to official pentagon parking charts:

In fact, where does Roberts specifically say it was headed away from and not towards the Pentagon? This always sounded like another CIT "detective"-style deduction. I understand 'this implies this' and such, where does he SAY it was flying away?

Thank you.

 

[R.Mackey]

Do you agree that Reheat's method of constructing his model and his assertion that he "won and doesn't need to debate" is inconsistent with the principles of science?
Here's the relevant part of the post:

So you're asking me to judge a bickering contest?

His model is an attempted proof by example. He wouldn't have to do this if the Pilots For Truth would actually produce a hypothesis. The burden of proof lies upon them, not Reheat. His method is not strictly scientific, but certainly valid as a rhetorical approach, viz. to bring you to debate.

Scientifically, he is not required to provide any argument at all. The case against is not only unproven, but unstated. He therefore "won" by default.

As for "doesn't need to debate," he is correct. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. In the absence of any competing hypothesis, the Official Story^TM remains the leading hypothesis. QED.

 

[jhunter1163]

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

http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/6-27-03/discussion.cgi.98.html

Here you go. From Lagasse no less.

Tripe Lip and the gang don't talk much about this. Maybe TLB can explain why Lagasse feels this way about the CIT.

 

[jhunter1163]

The Statements of Sgt. William Lagasse

Subject: 9-11
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:11:40 -0400
From: "Lagasse, William, , PFPA"
To: "'[email protected] '"


Dear Sir rest assured it was a Boeing 757 that flew into the building that
day, I was on duty as a pentagon police sgt. I was refueling my vehicle at
the barraks k gas station that day adjacent to the aircrafts flight path.
It was close enough that i could see the windows had the shades pulled down,
it struck several light poles next to rt 27 and struck a trailer used to
store construction equipment for the renovation of the pentagon that was to
the right of the fueselage impact point. The fact that you are insinuating
that this was staged and a fraud is unbelievable. You ask were the debris
is...well it was in the building..I saw it everywhere. I swear to god you
people piss me off to no end. I invite you and you come down and I will walk
you through it step by step. I have more than a few hours in general
aviation aircraft and can identify commercial airliners. Have you ever seen
photos of other aircraft accident photos...there usually isnt huge amounts
of debris left...how much did you see from the WTC?...are those fake
aircraft flying into the building. I know that this will make no diffrence
to you because to even have a websight like this you are obviously a
diffrent sort of thinker.

Any thoughts on this, TLB, particularly the bolded parts?

 

[jhunter1163]

Got quiet in here all of a sudden.

 

[D'rok]

Furthermore, Roberts saw the commercial airliner on the East side of the Pentagon-

No. He said "flying around the south parking lot." Why did you just lie about that?