Regarding 'Debunking the North of the Citgo Theory'

[beachnut]

Do you stand by this statement or what?

Thanks for posting Hal's letter, after reading about Hal, from what Balsamo "dredged" up on him. Hal is one of those rare people, who is so talented and hard working, he can do anything. Good for Hal, how sad there are vermin as vile as Balsamo, posting a letter calling Hal, 'definitely on of "them"'. How ironic to see the scum of p4t post the excellence of Hal. It is great to see talented people serving the country, it a privilege to serve with them.

Balsamo, is the opposite of Hal. That post from p4t debunks Balsamo and he just does not get it. In a few minutes I got to know more about Hal, due to the moronic rant and paranoia of Balsamo, and his attempt to discredit Hal and actually harass him, albeit behind Hal's back.

Truthers have no way of understanding the truth, they only strive for fantasy and lies, blame others and remain ignorant.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

All your paths are lies, the RADES is correct and witnesses support that.

There's nothing like blanket denial to make one feel better, I guess. None of the witnesses support the Rades data.

This mean you are calling all the witnesses liars, and you must include the FAA and the military in your fantasy plot.

In fact, you are calling all the witnesses liars if you insist that the RADES data is correct.

It has been shown the C-130 flew the departure than matches the RADES data exactly.

Again, I guess there's nothing like blanket denial to make one feel better.
Here's what the witnesses report:

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![snip mindless drivel]

And what part of northwest do you fail to understand, Beachnut?

"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"

No one reports RADES's massive south bank for the C130- not even O'brien.
As far as Roosevelt seeing the C130- there's no way you can stretch that claim to fit reality either. Besides the fact that Roosevelt reports a commercial airliner:
The C130 is nowhere near the Pentagon at the time of impact. It was (approximately) over Annandale, which is 8 miles from Arlington!

This is, of course, according to the RADES data, which has been proven fraudulent based on unanimous witness testimony.

 

[Reheat]

In fact, you are calling all the witnesses liars if you insist that the RADES data is correct.

Which witness specifically does not support the RADES data?

 

[KDLarsen]

No, its irrelevant to Lagasse's testimony.

That would be an amusing trial to watch. The star witness for the prosecution shooting down the prosecutors theory

Almost makes me wish someone would stage the trial/hearing the twoofers wants so bad, so they could be exposed as the laughing stock they truly are.

 

[twinstead]

It has always been my assertion that if truthers EVER got their way and for some odd reason they were allowed their day in court, they would be laughed out of the courtroom.

We know it. They know it. What else needs to be said?

 

[Dog Town]

It has always been my assertion that if truthers EVER got their way and for some odd reason they were allowed their day in court, they would be laughed out of the courtroom.

We know it. They know it. What else needs to be said?

Sadly, the only day in "twoofer" court, would go something like this!
OFF... W'ID DERRRR... EADZ!!!!000ELEVENonety!!!!!

 

[beachnut]

And what part of northwest do you fail to understand, Beachnut?

As far as Roosevelt seeing the C130- there's no way you can stretch that claim to fit reality either. Besides the fact that Roosevelt reports a commercial airliner:
The C130 is nowhere near the Pentagon at the time of impact. It was (approximately) over Annandale, which is 8 miles from Arlington!

This is, of course, according to the RADES data, which has been proven fraudulent based on unanimous witness testimony.

All the witnesses support the RADES data, you have no example with exact times and angles from any witness to confirm this.

There was no commercial airline in the air, low near the Pentagon after 77 impact, you are wrong again. He either saw the C-130, or after 6 years he is just plain wrong. I have witnesses who saw the C-130 right after 77's impact, you have trouble figuring out simple stuff. Proof is from RADES, if you call the FAA and the military lairs by saying it is false your total made up lie needs to backed up with facts, you have ZERO.

8 miles, I doubt you can measure it. Oh, you just made that up too? Is it 8 miles from impact, or were your witness will see it after 77 impact? My witnesses, you ignore saw the 130 right after impact, so does yours, cause only the 130 was over the Pentagon. Busted, your ideas trying to support the CIT failures.

BTW, you better try again, the departure that the C0-130 did is south of the Mall, includes a north takeoff, and west departure, you posted a north west departure, he went north, then west. You can not even figure out your own lie. What is up with CIT apologist, are they as bad at investigation as the biggest failures on 9/11, CIT?

Go measure how far the C-130 is. Can you do that?

Nice try, good for me no commercial planes were over the Pentagon, just a C-130, verified by RADES data, ATC personnel, the crew on the 130 (who think people like you are full of lies), and witnesses, even your witness but you are not trained on aircraft accident investigation and you need it! Most people only need a grade school education, you need extra help to understand 9/11. Why are you unable to find real evidence, and I am waiting for your proof the RADES data is wrong other than you the insane statement, because you say it is wrong. Proof, real proof has not been given as you post the proof it was the C-130, over and over again, posting your own debunking, even with your witness debunking you! funny stuff, keep up the comedy routine, you and CIT are equally challenged on this issue

Things you need to prove, that the C-130 was 8 miles away and not visible from the Pentagon; NOT VISIBLE! Good luck.

Find the actual departure plate used by the C-130, and prove they did not use it, cause it matches the RADES data!

Go!
This is the approach flown by the C-130 confirmed by RADES and it is takeoff to the North, turning west. You should have asked a pilot to look up this stuff; oops I am a pilot. See it an cry... http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0807/00561CAMPSPRINGS.PDF

This is the approach flown by the C-130 confirmed by RADES and it is takeoff to the North, turning west. You should have asked a pilot to look up this stuff; oops I am a pilot.

130 flew the takeoff to the North, and had to turn west, just like the RADES data, but you seem too challenged to understand. Pilots can see a many miles, we can see lights on ramps from 200 miles, and we will comment on how they look, the C-130 pilots saw the Mall from over 6 miles away, we pilots have good eyes, do you wear glasses and think all are vision challenged? The MALL to the north, proven by RADES! Why are you trying to lie, and failing?


Since you say it is all fake, you can now return to your fantasy world, but only share your delusions with other delusional truthers, they will love you. To dispute the RADES data means you have to blame the FAA, ATC, and the military, how nice of you to accuse with zero evidence, just your talk and failed interpretations of witness who debunk you.

you better hurry up and check this out...


C-130 was 6.85 miles from the impact of 77, when it hit, 6.8 miles from your witness, exactly where he said it was as it flew over.

The C-130 is visible at impact time from the Pentagon. Darn, an airplane over the Pentagon, with over meaning 3500 feet up in the sky, at an angle of … why not let the truther try to place the C-130 in the sky, the one many people saw and panicked as if it was coming to attack.

Hurry…

Darn, the C-130 from the time of impact on, just gets closer and appears higher in the sky as it gets closer, and the whole time it is 3500 to 2100 feet up in the sky! Over the Pentagon. BTW, the Pentagon is below 100 feet I believe. The C-130 is visible at the time of impact except for people who can't see.

In less than 2 minutes after 77 impacts, the C-130 is leaving the area, after being over the Pentagon and passing to the west, as the RADES data shows, and witness statements fit.

 

[Bobert]

TLB,
Why is the name blacked out of that letter that you and Ranke keep touting?
Its real easy for anyone to create a letter and have it support their side if you refuse to acknowledge who sent it.
Let me cut to the chase here buddy.....
YES I believe that Ranke would fake that.
He has ZERO PROBLEM accusing the people who had to sift through the human remains at the pentagon of being in on it and planting DNA.
Yes I believe Ranke to be a complete fraud so making up some BS letter doesnt seem to far fetched.
BTW TLB,
Ranke and the rest of the CIT scum have asked truthers help them get their evidence to a court.
Why they arent doing it themselves is beyond me.
YOU TLB, YES YOU!!!
YOU COULD MAKE HISTORY!!!!!
Be the one to get this to a court!!!!!!!
Are you up for the task?
This would honor those that died that day afterall.
So can we count on you to get the evidence to a court straight away?

 

[jhunter1163]

So Lagasse's specific statement that Pentagon no-planers are frauds is irrelevant, just like the statements of the thousand people who recovered wreckage in the Pentagon are irrelevant, and the security video showing no flyover is irrelevant, and the DNA tests are faked, and the light poles are planted, and the photos of dead bodies still strapped into airline seats are staged...

Denial. It ain't just a river in Africa any more.

 

[bje]

But the author of the letter of appreciation was an eyewitness to the wreckage- so will you admit you lied?

No, there is no statement there about the wreckage and Ranke refused to present any. So you got hoodwinked, TLB. Why?

No, none of those quotes say anything about CIT's intention of interviewing witnesses.

We're not concerned with "intentions." We're concerned with actions and results.

CIT did not interview the 1,000+ people who saw, recovered, or sorted through the wreckage from inside the Pentagon. Ranke and Marquis refused to do it. Ask them. Neither they or you have produced the statements many have repeatedly asked them for.

Are you saying that because CIT says there was little wreckage, therefore they refuse to interview first responders. I don't follow your "logic".

CIT refused to interview the 1,000+ people who saw, handled, removed, or sorted the wreckage. They said so. Therefore, CIT cannot describe the wreckage and cannot claim it was "planted."

Are you still confused by that fact, TLB?

Because, all of your attacks are based on lies.

I am asking for the statements. You have none. I am reporting what Ranke and Marquis said: they refused to interview the key eyewitnesses to the wreckage, over 1,000 living, breathing, dedicated Americans.

Reheat lies about were Morin saw the plane, and you seem to be lying about CIT "refusing to interview first responders".

I am talking about even more people than "first responders", aren't I? What confuses you about the "1,000+ people who saw, handled, removed, or sorted the wreckage in the hours, days, and weeks after 9/11?" WHERE are the statements, TLB?

Again, produce the quote or admit you're lying.

Produce the statements we've asked for 2 years. Names, statements, and dates of interviews.

Or, admit what Ranke and Marquis said:

Questioner: "Just what wreckage did they recover, Craig?"

Ranke: "Don't know, but I do know there wasn't very much of it....We make no claims beyond what we can support with evidence....We ignore and avoid nothing and most certainly have contacted DOZENS of witnesses, first responders, and victims."

"Don't know?" How do you explain that, TLB?

 

[Alt+F4]

CIT did not interview the 1,000+ people who saw, recovered, or sorted through the wreckage from inside the Pentagon. Ranke and Marquis refused to do it. Ask them. Neither they or you have produced the statements many have repeatedly asked them for.

They wouldn't have to interview all 1,000. How about just the 150 named in Firefight? Why do members of the CIT refuse to speak with these men and women?

 

[CptColumbo]

GPS makes hitting targets a no brainer. We have cruise missles that can hit a target to within the inch. modern aircraft can take off from a run way, fly to thier destination and safey land all on auto-pilot.

It also helps when your target is surrounded by distinctive landmarks and is the largest office building in the world. Much larger than the "broad-side of a barn."

 

[Wolrab]

If the plane didn't hit the Pentagon, whose job was it to rip out sections of seats, make sure the passengers were strapped in, cause massive acceleration trauma, then roast them, and place the rack of seats in the Pentagon? It would seem that would take quite a few people to pull this off, not to mention the psychological trauma. Were these people then sent to some FEMA camp never to be heard from again or can you depend on their unfailing loyalty to their sinister masters to keep quiet for nearly seven years?

 

[Alt+F4]

If the plane didn't hit the Pentagon, whose job was it to rip out sections of seats, make sure the passengers were strapped in, cause massive acceleration trauma, then roast them, and place the rack of seats in the Pentagon?

You forgot the 10,000 gallons of jet fuel. How did the evil doers spray that around the Pentagon?

 

[nicepants]

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

Not every witness says the exact same thing. (Except for the whole "the plane hit the pentagon" part)

You predictably missed the important question in my post:

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?

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

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

Interesting that you think criticism of the model's accuracy is 'bickering'?

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 model has nothing to do with PFT, it deals with CIT. Further back in the thread I've presented several unanimously corroborated statements about the plane's flightpath:

1)The plane must have flown NOC.
2)The plane must have flown over the explosion area.
3)The plane flew over the Navy Annex.
4)The plane flew east of the Potomac.

Needless to say, this is nowhere near enough data to test a hypothesis.

His method is not strictly scientific, but certainly valid as a rhetorical approach, viz. to bring you to debate.

But you go on to say:

As for "doesn't need to debate," he is correct.

So... he created the model to bring me to debate so he could declare victory and say he doesn't need 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.

Actually, the alternative hypothesis is plainly stated, albeit within the limitations of what the witnesses could actually report- essentially only plane location, approximate speed, and basic plane type.

Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.

The problem with the above is that "exceptional" is subjective. Certainly, a 130 ft wingspan 757 disappearing into a 90-foot hole with no visible wing debris or corresponding damage to the Pentagon facade is a rather exceptional claim, and certainly a grainy 5-frame video with a missing frame and incorrect date which the Pentagon wouldn't even take credit for originally is not exceptional evidence. Certainly unanimously corroborated testimony of a simple fact which wasn't reported on the MSM from people who haven't even talked to one another is "exceptional evidence". If you claim otherwise, then you are going to have to give "exceptional evidence" for why all the witnesses simultaneously hallucinated the exact same detail.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

that was definitely the dumbest post I have ever read.

Ah yes, the incorrect date on the footage. A date that was put there by the conspiracy web sites and isn't even IN the original footage. I mean come on. how can people be this stupid? Yes, as if we're supposed to believe that they crashed a plane the next day and then used that footage, or that they faked some footage and were able to pull off this completely impossible fly over nonsense but forgot the right date of the event conveniently enough to help the Woo movement.

My God how do these kids remember to tie their shoes?

 

[HawksFan]

Woo movement.

My God how do these kids remember to tie their shoes?

Velcro. Much easier to deal with while they have their safety helmets on. The whole "rabbit goes around the tree and down the hole" thing is way too complicated.

 

[R.Mackey]

The model has nothing to do with PFT, it deals with CIT. Further back in the thread I've presented several unanimously corroborated statements about the plane's flightpath:

These "unanimously corroborated" statements are not, in fact, unanimously corroborated. Particularly as they conflict with physical evidence.

I personally find it difficult to distinguish between Pilots For Truth and the Citizens' Investigation Team. The rhetoric and quality of investigation is quite similar. I trust you know to whom I was referring, even if I didn't.

Needless to say, this is nowhere near enough data to test a hypothesis.

One may test a hypothesis with any amount of data. More data is only required if there is a competing hypothesis that also passes those tests.

There is none that I am aware of.

So... he created the model to bring me to debate so he could declare victory and say he doesn't need to debate?

What's missing from this narrative is your participation. I'll let him speak for himself, but I imagine he created the model to bring you to debate, but you failed to do so, instead simply issuing further unsupported claims. Had you risen to the debate, I doubt he would have declared victory. Since you apparently cannot, his delcaration is correct.

Actually, the alternative hypothesis is plainly stated, albeit within the limitations of what the witnesses could actually report- essentially only plane location, approximate speed, and basic plane type.

The alternative hypothesis, as you have stated it, includes an aircraft totally unknown to aerospace or even physics. You assume it could exist simply because you assume "they" have aircraft technologies far exceeding anything we have ever seen. This is not a complete hypothesis.

The problem with the above is that "exceptional" is subjective. Certainly, a 130 ft wingspan 757 disappearing into a 90-foot hole with no visible wing debris or corresponding damage to the Pentagon facade is a rather exceptional claim, and certainly a grainy 5-frame video with a missing frame and incorrect date which the Pentagon wouldn't even take credit for originally is not exceptional evidence.

You would be correct, but no one has made this claim. Instead, you arbitrarily reject much of the actual evidence. Therefore, the claim is yours.

This is a classic strawman argument. And if that is all you have to offer, then you should not be surprised when others conclude the debate is over.

 

[nicepants]

TLB- Please answer the following question:

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?