Regarding 'Debunking the North of the Citgo Theory'

[TheLoneBedouin]

NOBODY cares about Craigs "corroborated" witnesses.

Really? There are around 20 threads tagged with "cit", some of which are rather long.

All of his witnesses say the plane hit the Pentagon as does ALL of the physical evidence and dozens of other witnesses. Everyone knows what happened, that's why no one is going to go out and interview people 7 years later.

That simply isn't true. Scientists are continuing to debate the specifics of the events of 9/11.

It would be like you saying you have a handful of people that saw Santa Claus; therefore they are "corroborated" witnesses. It doesn't mean jack.

So your saying all the witnesses simultaneously hallucinated?

"Take your crap to the Media (any major outlet in the World will do), take it to a Court of Law, take it to any of the numerous politicians who would love to see the current Administration implicated, and make something happen."

First, it isn't my "crap"- it is what the witnesses say. Steps are being made to investigate possible US involvement- the key thing know is to compile the evidence and guard against poor criticisms (such as Reheat's paper).

Well, if you have a problem with my direct interpretation of a witness statement then why don't you have the same problem with CIT's interpretation of multiple corraborated witness statements that "I saw the aircraft impact the building"?

The two equally corroborated claims are incompatible- If you want to discuss why one is picked over the other start a new thread. This thread is for discussing the accuracy of your model.
Care to answer my question:
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 of witness testimony.

 

[Reheat]

The UN is currently investigating possible US involvement-

Source/Evidence?

 

[uk_dave]

Source/Evidence?

It's funny how 'truthers' strive to be taken seriously and then come out with something so incredibly stupid as to make their core beliefs pale in comparison.

 

[~enigma~]

The UN is currently investigating possible US involvement.

That is worthy of a HUGE laugh since it is the 9/11 truth movement that claims (besides 9/11 bs) that taxes are illegal and they are paid to the UN which is a private corporation that "owns" the USA. Nice how you fools think taking your baloney to "the enemy" is gonna help. CIT is a bunch of intellectually bankrupt morons. Want to tell Alpo so he can threaten to sue me again?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

That simply isn't true. Scientists are continuing to debate the specifics of the events of 9/11.

Since you brought this up: The only substantive academic debate that's going on exists between NIST and the University of Edinburgh & the Arup researchers. And that debate only concerns the role of fireproofing dislodgement in the Twin Towers; as noted in other threads, the U of Edinburgh and Arup researchers believe that the collapses would have occurred from the fires alone, even without the physical dislodging of the SFRM. Note that in this case the debate has nothing to do with the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon; no reputable scientist has commented on that in any form. And no reputable scientist has voiced any doubt about the sequence of events in Washington that day.

So your statement is true in one regard: There are indeed researchers debating the finer points of one specific issue of 9/11 (the role of fireproofing in the Twin Towers). But the problem is that you posted that as a response to this:

All of his witnesses say the plane hit the Pentagon as does ALL of the physical evidence and dozens of other witnesses. Everyone knows what happened, that's why no one is going to go out and interview people 7 years later.

Your answer does not disprove or even properly answer that part of Calcas's post. There are no reputable scientists who're raising any sort of debate regarding the events of the Pentagon. Unless you can produce any that we're not aware of, your statement is incorrect.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Source/Evidence?

Sorry, that is incorrect. It was in reference to Fujita and Falk- both involved in international politics who have called for an investigation. I'll change it to "steps are being made for a new investigation".

 

[~enigma~]

Sorry, that is incorrect. It was in reference to Fujita and Falk- both involved in international politics who have called for an investigation. I'll change it to "steps are being made for a new investigation".

Ah...so if nobody called you on it you would have left it go as correct. Really honest of you...

 

[Reheat]

Sorry, that is incorrect. It was in reference to Fujita and Falk- both involved in international politics who have called for an investigation. I'll change it to "steps are being made for a new investigation".

Same as the steps being taken by the BM, huh?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

That is another error in Reheat's paper. Cit does not claim that the plane was flight 77, they claim it was a 'decoy jet'. Conflating these two is one of the more glaring errors in the paper.

So CIT's claim is not only that the jet is not AA77, but is actually one with either vectored thrust and/or variable geometry wings?

Aside from the vectored thrust demonstration jet and the Harrier, what vectored thrust planes were available in 2001? And which ones might be confused for a passenger jet, given that both the Harrier and the demo craft are rather easily to distinguish from a 757?

Ok, well I used "fixed wing" to refer to aircraft that actually have fixed wings- as the name suggests, variable geometry wings are variable in shape.

And that demonstrates a lack of knowledge to what the term "fixed wing' refers to. It's to distinguish from "rotary wing". This is the definition that Wikipedia gives:

A fixed-wing aircraft is a heavier-than-air craft whose lift is generated not by wing motion relative to the aircraft, but by forward motion through the air. The term is used to distinguish from rotary-wing aircraft or ornithopters, where the movement of the wing surfaces relative to the aircraft generates lift.

 

[Reheat]

I'll tell you something Ranke. If I get some spare time with nothing to do in the next few weeks I'll move the flight path a little North of Morin's stated location and then you can choke on another FAILED flight path theory!

How then are you going to explain Paik's statement that he thought the aircraft hit the VDOT tower?

 

[pomeroo]

But if all of the witnesses are 'counts' except one tiny detail from one of the witnesses, then I would consider the accuracy of the detail rather than construct my entire argument around it in order to ignore inconvenient evidence. Btw, i did not necessarily "discard the miss", as you put it- read the second part of my post.


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.

Ooops! The latest waterboy (with apologies to the original Waterboy, Kevin Ryan) has fallen into the same pitfall that rendered the CIT a laughingstock when this lunacy first saw the light of day. The clumsy charlatans allegedly have witnesses who describe an impossible flight path, but those same witnesses claim to have seen the aircraft crash into the Pentagon. Now, this question has been asked a thousand times, without ever being addressed by the fools and frauds, but here it is again: WHICH OF THEIR MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE CLAIMS, THE NOC FLIGHT PATH OR THE PLANE HITTING THE PENTAGON, WOULD THE CHERRY-PICKED WITNESSES ABANDON?

You see, by the oddest coincidence, NOBODY
has thought to put this question--this question that SCREAMS to be asked--to the "witnesses." How do you account for this stunning omission? It's almost as though the "interviewers" understood, as does every sane person, that the witnesses would continue to insist that they really did see a plane hit the Pentagon.

That is another error in Reheat's paper. Cit does not claim that the plane was flight 77, they claim it was a 'decoy jet'. Conflating these two is one of the more glaring errors in the paper.
Ok, well I used "fixed wing" to refer to aircraft that actually have fixed wings- as the name suggests, variable geometry wings are variable in shape.

The "decoy jet" is, of course, a figment of the overheated imaginations of a few very silly frauds.

 

[Bobert]

Evidence?

2 years now of sitting on what they claim to be EVIDENCE.
Claiming that DNA was planted at the Pentagon WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE
claiming that Flight 77 flew up and over the pentagon yet not a single person of the 100's who witnessed this claim the plane flew over the Pentagon.
Claimin g that explosives were used at the Pentagon WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE.
I could go on.....
All of the above deceptions were made for personal gain whether it be sales of their DVD's or notoriety within the truther community.

 

[Bobert]

Oh my I scrolled up and saw Ron's post and thought at first that JPreston had joined JREF!

 

[pomeroo]

What are CIT's credentials?

They really, really, r-e-a-l-l-y hate the American government, although they can't figure out if the government includes a lot of Democrats who really, really hate Bush and Cheney. (If it does, then certain, uh, problems arise.) Also, their math skills aren't worth spit and their interview techniques would embarrass a child writing for his school newspaper.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Since you brought this up: The only substantive academic debate that's going on exists between NIST and the University of Edinburgh & the Arup researchers. And that debate only concerns the role of fireproofing dislodgement in the Twin Towers; as noted in other threads, the U of Edinburgh and Arup researchers believe that the collapses would have occurred from the fires alone, even without the physical dislodging of the SFRM. Note that in this case the debate has nothing to do with the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon; no reputable scientist has commented on that in any form. And no reputable scientist has voiced any doubt about the sequence of events in Washington that day.

So your statement is true in one regard: There are indeed researchers debating the finer points of one specific issue of 9/11 (the role of fireproofing in the Twin Towers). But the problem is that you posted that as a response to this:



Your answer does not disprove or even properly answer that part of Calcas's post. There are no reputable scientists who're raising any sort of debate regarding the events of the Pentagon. Unless you can produce any that we're not aware of, your statement is incorrect.

So CIT's claim is not only that the jet is not AA77, but is actually one with either vectored thrust and/or variable geometry wings?

Aside from the vectored thrust demonstration jet and the Harrier, what vectored thrust planes were available in 2001? And which ones might be confused for a passenger jet, given that both the Harrier and the demo craft are rather easily to distinguish from a 757?



And that demonstrates a lack of knowledge to what the term "fixed wing' refers to. It's to distinguish from "rotary wing". This is the definition that Wikipedia gives:

I didn't think about this when I first posted, but I'm derailing the thread with my posts. Mods, if you feel the need, I have zero objection to my posts being moved. They're not on topic. My apologies to everyone for the digression.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Note that in this case the debate has nothing to do with the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon; no reputable scientist has commented on that in any form..

Not true. Here are two.

And no reputable scientist has voiced any doubt about the sequence of events in Washington that day.

Here's another one. A humbodt award winner no less.

The Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (AvH) grants Humboldt Research Awards annually to foreign scholars with internationally recognized academic qualifications. The award is intended as a lifelong tribute to the past academic accomplishments of award winners. Furthermore, award winners are invited to carry out research projects of their own choice in Germany in cooperation with German specialist colleagues.

Humboldt Research Award is a very prestigious international scientific award. This Award is given to“eminent non-German researchers whose fundamental discoveries, insights or new theories have had a lasting impact on their field of specialization and who are expected to produce cutting edge results”.

 

[pomeroo]

You guys just don't get it, do you?

NOBODY cares about Craigs "corroborated" witnesses. All of his witnesses say the plane hit the Pentagon as does ALL of the physical evidence and dozens of other witnesses. Everyone knows what happened, that's why no one is going to go out and interview people 7 years later.

It would be like you saying you have a handful of people that saw Santa Claus; therefore they are "corroborated" witnesses. It doesn't mean jack.

I noticed you never addressed this quote from Reheat:

"Take your crap to the Media (any major outlet in the World will do), take it to a Court of Law, take it to any of the numerous politicians who would love to see the current Administration implicated, and make something happen."

That pretty much sums it up.

Please tell us why you would rather argue this on the Internet than actually doing something to solve the crime of the century.

In the late eighties, Fox aired a series called "Werewolf." As part of its promotion campaign, the network set up a "Werewolf Hotline" to enable people who had seen a werewolf to phone in their experiences. The hotline logged more than a million sightings. It is somewhat relevant to this thread that of those million-plus sightings, not a single one was real.

 

[Pardalis]

Not true. Here are two.

Here's another one. A humbodt award winner no less.

What are the CIT boys credentials again?

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

So CIT's claim is not only that the jet is not AA77, but is actually one with either vectored thrust and/or variable geometry wings?

No, cit has never claimed this. Those two examples were merely were used to highlight the absurdity of the claim that "no plane could fly noc". The key flaw is the misinterpretation of Morin's testimony.

Aside from the vectored thrust demonstration jet and the Harrier, what vectored thrust planes were available in 2001? And which ones might be confused for a passenger jet, given that both the Harrier and the demo craft are rather easily to distinguish from a 757?

I do not know the extent of the military's flight technology in 2001. Likely such information is classified- if you can access such information, however, please justify Reheat's claim that "no plane can fly NOC".

And that demonstrates a lack of knowledge to what the term "fixed wing' refers to.

This could lead to the conclusion that Reheat's equations are applicable to alternative designs- they aren't. In any case, you're just arguing semantics.

 

[Mangoose]

Sorry, but I have no clue what the OP was trying to say. From where Terry Morin said he was at the time, he certainly could not have watched the plane continue to descend all the way to the Pentagon had the plane been on a NOC path. The Navy Annex would have blocked his view. So how could Morin be a NOC witness as claimed here:

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...

BTW, Craig Ranke claimed in his Damage Report appearance that his witnesses described a white plane -- not a silver plane -- so if "Morin agreed in all other respects" with Craig's other witnesses, why does Morin say that the plane was silver and had blue and red stripes?

If the plane was at the official altitude, Morin would not have been able to see the tail, and in fact, he wouldn't have been able to see the impact at all if the official flight path was correct(pft did a video on this).

Didn't see that video, but I can't see how Morin could at all be construed as supportive of a higher altitude necessary for a "flyover" hyposethesis. He said "[a]s the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft." The plane thus had to be low enough for mere trees in his line of view to block the view of the aircraft (aside from the vertical stabilizer). He then described it dipping even lower until the tail itself was hardly visible. So how could it have recovered from such a low altitude to fly over the Pentagon? And how could he have seen the plane at all if it was NOC?