South Side/Light Pole eyewitnesses

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2
…
30

South Side/Light Pole eyewitnesses
Topic Started: Feb 10 2009, 06:18 PM (8,986 Views)
tuatara	Feb 10 2009, 06:18 PM Post #1
Posts: 194 Group: Members Member #1,046 Joined: 02/02/09	I've been looking at the CIT stuff recently and they seem to have collected over 10 eye-witnesses who claim the plane flew "over Navy Annexe/North of Citgo". This is quite compelling because, while they don't all agree exactly with the flightpath, there is general agreement that places the plane north of the Citgo gas station. I've scanned quickly through this Skeptics section trying to find positive evidence to refute these eye-witnesses but failed so far - so I thought I would start my own topic to see what I can gather. It seems skeptics have 2 options. 1. Show that the flightpath that they observed is not incompatible with the plane striking the 5 light poles OR 2. Provide detailed eye-witness accounts that prove that the plane did strike the light poles and thus refute the eye-witnesses that CIT has interviewed. I am assuming that this was a busy highway and there must have been many people who saw the plane strike the poles and a pole strike the cab. So let's keep it simple. Please choose either 1 or 2 and state your best evidence.
Posts: 194 Group: Members Member #1,046 Joined: 02/02/09


justfacts	Feb 11 2009, 03:35 PM Post #2
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08	1) Since "they" have not shown a single flightpath, it is impossible to say what the non-existant path is or is not compatible with.
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08


tuatara	Feb 11 2009, 06:32 PM Post #3
Posts: 194 Group: Members Member #1,046 Joined: 02/02/09	justfacts Feb 11 2009, 03:35 PM 1) Since "they" have not shown a single flightpath, it is impossible to say what the non-existant path is or is not compatible with. Please pick any flightpath that passes north of the Citgo gas station. I am struggling to see why you would require over 10 eye-witnesses in differing locations to come up with a single flightpath.
Posts: 194 Group: Members Member #1,046 Joined: 02/02/09


justfacts	Feb 12 2009, 08:37 AM Post #4
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08	tuatara Feb 11 2009, 06:32 PM justfacts Feb 11 2009, 03:35 PM 1) Since "they" have not shown a single flightpath, it is impossible to say what the non-existant path is or is not compatible with. Please pick any flightpath that passes north of the Citgo gas station. I am struggling to see why you would require over 10 eye-witnesses in differing locations to come up with a single flightpath. You kind of answered yourself. Different people in different locations have different perspectives with regard to a very rapidly moving object. Then you take and conglomerate these various perspectives and apply a generalized, but misleading, label like "North of Citgo". I could just as easily say that the flightpath was "West of the Atlantic Ocean" or "South of Philadelphia" or "East of the Mississippi". The physical and technical evidence sorts out the witness accounts, not the reverse.
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08


tuatara	Feb 12 2009, 02:08 PM Post #5
Posts: 194 Group: Members Member #1,046 Joined: 02/02/09	justfacts Feb 12 2009, 08:37 AM tuatara Feb 11 2009, 06:32 PM justfacts Feb 11 2009, 03:35 PM 1) Since "they" have not shown a single flightpath, it is impossible to say what the non-existant path is or is not compatible with. Please pick any flightpath that passes north of the Citgo gas station. I am struggling to see why you would require over 10 eye-witnesses in differing locations to come up with a single flightpath. You kind of answered yourself. Different people in different locations have different perspectives with regard to a very rapidly moving object. Then you take and conglomerate these various perspectives and apply a generalized, but misleading, label like "North of Citgo". I could just as easily say that the flightpath was "West of the Atlantic Ocean" or "South of Philadelphia" or "East of the Mississippi". The physical and technical evidence sorts out the witness accounts, not the reverse. So to summarise your input to date - you have absolutely nothing to offer. North of the Citgo is not misleading at all - it is perfectly clear and relatively precise.
Posts: 194 Group: Members Member #1,046 Joined: 02/02/09


justfacts	Feb 12 2009, 02:29 PM Post #6
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08	tuatara Feb 12 2009, 02:08 PM justfacts Feb 12 2009, 08:37 AM tuatara Feb 11 2009, 06:32 PM justfacts Feb 11 2009, 03:35 PM 1) Since "they" have not shown a single flightpath, it is impossible to say what the non-existant path is or is not compatible with. Please pick any flightpath that passes north of the Citgo gas station. I am struggling to see why you would require over 10 eye-witnesses in differing locations to come up with a single flightpath. You kind of answered yourself. Different people in different locations have different perspectives with regard to a very rapidly moving object. Then you take and conglomerate these various perspectives and apply a generalized, but misleading, label like "North of Citgo". I could just as easily say that the flightpath was "West of the Atlantic Ocean" or "South of Philadelphia" or "East of the Mississippi". The physical and technical evidence sorts out the witness accounts, not the reverse. So to summarise your input to date - you have absolutely nothing to offer. North of the Citgo is not misleading at all - it is perfectly clear and relatively precise. Just clarity and perspective.
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08


tuatara	Feb 12 2009, 03:00 PM Post #7
Posts: 194 Group: Members Member #1,046 Joined: 02/02/09	justfacts Feb 12 2009, 02:29 PM tuatara Feb 12 2009, 02:08 PM justfacts Feb 12 2009, 08:37 AM tuatara Feb 11 2009, 06:32 PM justfacts Feb 11 2009, 03:35 PM 1) Since "they" have not shown a single flightpath, it is impossible to say what the non-existant path is or is not compatible with. Please pick any flightpath that passes north of the Citgo gas station. I am struggling to see why you would require over 10 eye-witnesses in differing locations to come up with a single flightpath. You kind of answered yourself. Different people in different locations have different perspectives with regard to a very rapidly moving object. Then you take and conglomerate these various perspectives and apply a generalized, but misleading, label like "North of Citgo". I could just as easily say that the flightpath was "West of the Atlantic Ocean" or "South of Philadelphia" or "East of the Mississippi". The physical and technical evidence sorts out the witness accounts, not the reverse. So to summarise your input to date - you have absolutely nothing to offer. North of the Citgo is not misleading at all - it is perfectly clear and relatively precise. Just clarity and perspective. You have provided no clarity - you are attempting to obfuscate. I'm hoping somebody else will join the thread who can actually make a contribution.
Posts: 194 Group: Members Member #1,046 Joined: 02/02/09


justfacts	Feb 12 2009, 03:16 PM Post #8
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08	Exactly what are you looking for? You want someone to say "Eureka"!! you are correct sir, the plane could not have hit those poles and flown north of the gas station!! Brilliant!! Person or persons unknown must have snuck in before or after the fact and planted pole pieces and taken the original poles down! Wow! Let's go get them. Or, you can say that some persons think the plane may have flown slightly closer to them then it actually did, perfectly reasonable considering the expedited duration of the event, and the poles were displaced when they were struck by parts of the rapidly moving airplane. You can have it either way.
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08


tuatara	Feb 12 2009, 06:32 PM Post #9
Posts: 194 Group: Members Member #1,046 Joined: 02/02/09	justfacts Feb 12 2009, 03:16 PM Exactly what are you looking for? You want someone to say "Eureka"!! you are correct sir, the plane could not have hit those poles and flown north of the gas station!! Brilliant!! Person or persons unknown must have snuck in before or after the fact and planted pole pieces and taken the original poles down! Wow! Let's go get them. Or, you can say that some persons think the plane may have flown slightly closer to them then it actually did, perfectly reasonable considering the expedited duration of the event, and the poles were displaced when they were struck by parts of the rapidly moving airplane. You can have it either way. I set out what I was looking for in my first thread, since when you began your campaign of obfuscation. If you believe that all of the CIT eye-witnesses are incorrect in their placing of the plane as it flew towards the Pentagon (where for some of them it was as simple a choice as left or right and they all chose a path north of the Citgo gas station) then I want to know why you believe it, what compelling evidence is there that you have that all of these eye-witnesses are incorrect in such a similar way. Edited by tuatara, Feb 12 2009, 06:33 PM.
Posts: 194 Group: Members Member #1,046 Joined: 02/02/09


justfacts	Feb 13 2009, 08:38 AM Post #10
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08	tuatara Feb 12 2009, 06:32 PM justfacts Feb 12 2009, 03:16 PM Exactly what are you looking for? You want someone to say "Eureka"!! you are correct sir, the plane could not have hit those poles and flown north of the gas station!! Brilliant!! Person or persons unknown must have snuck in before or after the fact and planted pole pieces and taken the original poles down! Wow! Let's go get them. Or, you can say that some persons think the plane may have flown slightly closer to them then it actually did, perfectly reasonable considering the expedited duration of the event, and the poles were displaced when they were struck by parts of the rapidly moving airplane. You can have it either way. I set out what I was looking for in my first thread, since when you began your campaign of obfuscation. If you believe that all of the CIT eye-witnesses are incorrect in their placing of the plane as it flew towards the Pentagon (where for some of them it was as simple a choice as left or right and they all chose a path north of the Citgo gas station) then I want to know why you believe it, what compelling evidence is there that you have that all of these eye-witnesses are incorrect in such a similar way. Like I said above, they all thought the plane flew closer to them then it actually did. Not a big deal, not difficult to imagine, not difficult to understand considering the circumstances. Also, I've seen and read some of the so-called CIT "interviews". As investigative inquires I would be kind in saying that they leave a lot to be desired. Please note that when asked to draw the flight path on a google earth map they all drew different paths. Some of them varied by hundreds of feet. And I believe they all said that the plane crashed into the Pentagon. Add that to the broken light poles, plane debris in and around the Pentagon, DNA results of the remains matching the passenger list, radar and flight data records, other testimony regarding seeing the plane crash into the Pentagon and the sum answer is that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08


JFK	Feb 13 2009, 09:30 AM Post #11
Posts: 4,164 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	justfacts Feb 13 2009, 08:38 AM tuatara Feb 12 2009, 06:32 PM justfacts Feb 12 2009, 03:16 PM Exactly what are you looking for? You want someone to say "Eureka"!! you are correct sir, the plane could not have hit those poles and flown north of the gas station!! Brilliant!! Person or persons unknown must have snuck in before or after the fact and planted pole pieces and taken the original poles down! Wow! Let's go get them. Or, you can say that some persons think the plane may have flown slightly closer to them then it actually did, perfectly reasonable considering the expedited duration of the event, and the poles were displaced when they were struck by parts of the rapidly moving airplane. You can have it either way. I set out what I was looking for in my first thread, since when you began your campaign of obfuscation. If you believe that all of the CIT eye-witnesses are incorrect in their placing of the plane as it flew towards the Pentagon (where for some of them it was as simple a choice as left or right and they all chose a path north of the Citgo gas station) then I want to know why you believe it, what compelling evidence is there that you have that all of these eye-witnesses are incorrect in such a similar way. Like I said above, they all thought the plane flew closer to them then it actually did. Not a big deal, not difficult to imagine, not difficult to understand considering the circumstances. Also, I've seen and read some of the so-called CIT "interviews". As investigative inquires I would be kind in saying that they leave a lot to be desired. Please note that when asked to draw the flight path on a google earth map they all drew different paths. Some of them varied by hundreds of feet. And I believe they all said that the plane crashed into the Pentagon. Add that to the broken light poles, plane debris in and around the Pentagon, DNA results of the remains matching the passenger list, radar and flight data records, other testimony regarding seeing the plane crash into the Pentagon and the sum answer is that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. Indeed they did draw different paths, but the one thing those paths all had in common is that they were all north of the CITGO. That is irreconcilable with the downed light poles, and you should know that if you wished to live up to your username.
Posts: 4,164 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


pguillory	Feb 13 2009, 09:53 AM Post #12
Posts: 91 Group: BANNED! Member #766 Joined: 07/25/08	JFK Feb 13 2009, 09:30 AM justfacts Feb 13 2009, 08:38 AM tuatara Feb 12 2009, 06:32 PM justfacts Feb 12 2009, 03:16 PM Exactly what are you looking for? You want someone to say "Eureka"!! you are correct sir, the plane could not have hit those poles and flown north of the gas station!! Brilliant!! Person or persons unknown must have snuck in before or after the fact and planted pole pieces and taken the original poles down! Wow! Let's go get them. Or, you can say that some persons think the plane may have flown slightly closer to them then it actually did, perfectly reasonable considering the expedited duration of the event, and the poles were displaced when they were struck by parts of the rapidly moving airplane. You can have it either way. I set out what I was looking for in my first thread, since when you began your campaign of obfuscation. If you believe that all of the CIT eye-witnesses are incorrect in their placing of the plane as it flew towards the Pentagon (where for some of them it was as simple a choice as left or right and they all chose a path north of the Citgo gas station) then I want to know why you believe it, what compelling evidence is there that you have that all of these eye-witnesses are incorrect in such a similar way. Like I said above, they all thought the plane flew closer to them then it actually did. Not a big deal, not difficult to imagine, not difficult to understand considering the circumstances. Also, I've seen and read some of the so-called CIT "interviews". As investigative inquires I would be kind in saying that they leave a lot to be desired. Please note that when asked to draw the flight path on a google earth map they all drew different paths. Some of them varied by hundreds of feet. And I believe they all said that the plane crashed into the Pentagon. Add that to the broken light poles, plane debris in and around the Pentagon, DNA results of the remains matching the passenger list, radar and flight data records, other testimony regarding seeing the plane crash into the Pentagon and the sum answer is that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. Indeed they did draw different paths, but the one thing those paths all had in common is that they were all north of the CITGO. That is irreconcilable with the downed light poles, and you should know that if you wished to live up to your username. If it contradicts the light pole damage, then why choose to go down the planted light pole path? The more logical conclusion is that they were wrong or mistaken about the placement of the plane. Why is this so hard to believe? It happens in every investigation. You have conflicting eyewitness tesimony. If ten people said they saw a helicopter hit the pentagon. Do you conclude that a helicopter hit the pentagon, in light of all of the other evidence and witnesses?
Posts: 91 Group: BANNED! Member #766 Joined: 07/25/08


justfacts	Feb 13 2009, 09:53 AM Post #13
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08	JFK Feb 13 2009, 09:30 AM justfacts Feb 13 2009, 08:38 AM tuatara Feb 12 2009, 06:32 PM justfacts Feb 12 2009, 03:16 PM Exactly what are you looking for? You want someone to say "Eureka"!! you are correct sir, the plane could not have hit those poles and flown north of the gas station!! Brilliant!! Person or persons unknown must have snuck in before or after the fact and planted pole pieces and taken the original poles down! Wow! Let's go get them. Or, you can say that some persons think the plane may have flown slightly closer to them then it actually did, perfectly reasonable considering the expedited duration of the event, and the poles were displaced when they were struck by parts of the rapidly moving airplane. You can have it either way. I set out what I was looking for in my first thread, since when you began your campaign of obfuscation. If you believe that all of the CIT eye-witnesses are incorrect in their placing of the plane as it flew towards the Pentagon (where for some of them it was as simple a choice as left or right and they all chose a path north of the Citgo gas station) then I want to know why you believe it, what compelling evidence is there that you have that all of these eye-witnesses are incorrect in such a similar way. Like I said above, they all thought the plane flew closer to them then it actually did. Not a big deal, not difficult to imagine, not difficult to understand considering the circumstances. Also, I've seen and read some of the so-called CIT "interviews". As investigative inquires I would be kind in saying that they leave a lot to be desired. Please note that when asked to draw the flight path on a google earth map they all drew different paths. Some of them varied by hundreds of feet. And I believe they all said that the plane crashed into the Pentagon. Add that to the broken light poles, plane debris in and around the Pentagon, DNA results of the remains matching the passenger list, radar and flight data records, other testimony regarding seeing the plane crash into the Pentagon and the sum answer is that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. Indeed they did draw different paths, but the one thing those paths all had in common is that they were all north of the CITGO. That is irreconcilable with the downed light poles, and you should know that if you wished to live up to your username. I didn't say that it wasn't irreconciable, I just say it doesn't matter. The other thing they all had in common is they all terminated at the Pentagon. So why not call them "End at Pentagon" rather than "North of Citgo"?
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08


JFK	Feb 13 2009, 10:35 AM Post #14
Posts: 4,164 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	justfacts Feb 13 2009, 09:53 AM JFK Feb 13 2009, 09:30 AM justfacts Feb 13 2009, 08:38 AM tuatara Feb 12 2009, 06:32 PM justfacts Feb 12 2009, 03:16 PM Exactly what are you looking for? You want someone to say "Eureka"!! you are correct sir, the plane could not have hit those poles and flown north of the gas station!! Brilliant!! Person or persons unknown must have snuck in before or after the fact and planted pole pieces and taken the original poles down! Wow! Let's go get them. Or, you can say that some persons think the plane may have flown slightly closer to them then it actually did, perfectly reasonable considering the expedited duration of the event, and the poles were displaced when they were struck by parts of the rapidly moving airplane. You can have it either way. I set out what I was looking for in my first thread, since when you began your campaign of obfuscation. If you believe that all of the CIT eye-witnesses are incorrect in their placing of the plane as it flew towards the Pentagon (where for some of them it was as simple a choice as left or right and they all chose a path north of the Citgo gas station) then I want to know why you believe it, what compelling evidence is there that you have that all of these eye-witnesses are incorrect in such a similar way. Like I said above, they all thought the plane flew closer to them then it actually did. Not a big deal, not difficult to imagine, not difficult to understand considering the circumstances. Also, I've seen and read some of the so-called CIT "interviews". As investigative inquires I would be kind in saying that they leave a lot to be desired. Please note that when asked to draw the flight path on a google earth map they all drew different paths. Some of them varied by hundreds of feet. And I believe they all said that the plane crashed into the Pentagon. Add that to the broken light poles, plane debris in and around the Pentagon, DNA results of the remains matching the passenger list, radar and flight data records, other testimony regarding seeing the plane crash into the Pentagon and the sum answer is that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. Indeed they did draw different paths, but the one thing those paths all had in common is that they were all north of the CITGO. That is irreconcilable with the downed light poles, and you should know that if you wished to live up to your username. I didn't say that it wasn't irreconciable, I just say it doesn't matter. The other thing they all had in common is they all terminated at the Pentagon. So why not call them "End at Pentagon" rather than "North of Citgo"? Obviously you have no clue about the layout of the Pentagon vicinity. I am the one who said it was irreconcilable. And it is. If the plane was north of the CITGO there is no way it could have made contact with those downed light poles. I suggest you study the area some more. At this point I really don't give a flying [censored] if the plane impacted the Pentagon or not. The plane in question could not have had contact with those poles if it was north of the CITGO. That little fact proves not only a lie, but a conspiracy by our government. End of story.
Posts: 4,164 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


pguillory	Feb 13 2009, 10:55 AM Post #15
Posts: 91 Group: BANNED! Member #766 Joined: 07/25/08	JFK Feb 13 2009, 10:35 AM justfacts Feb 13 2009, 09:53 AM JFK Feb 13 2009, 09:30 AM justfacts Feb 13 2009, 08:38 AM tuatara Feb 12 2009, 06:32 PM justfacts Feb 12 2009, 03:16 PM Exactly what are you looking for? You want someone to say "Eureka"!! you are correct sir, the plane could not have hit those poles and flown north of the gas station!! Brilliant!! Person or persons unknown must have snuck in before or after the fact and planted pole pieces and taken the original poles down! Wow! Let's go get them. Or, you can say that some persons think the plane may have flown slightly closer to them then it actually did, perfectly reasonable considering the expedited duration of the event, and the poles were displaced when they were struck by parts of the rapidly moving airplane. You can have it either way. I set out what I was looking for in my first thread, since when you began your campaign of obfuscation. If you believe that all of the CIT eye-witnesses are incorrect in their placing of the plane as it flew towards the Pentagon (where for some of them it was as simple a choice as left or right and they all chose a path north of the Citgo gas station) then I want to know why you believe it, what compelling evidence is there that you have that all of these eye-witnesses are incorrect in such a similar way. Like I said above, they all thought the plane flew closer to them then it actually did. Not a big deal, not difficult to imagine, not difficult to understand considering the circumstances. Also, I've seen and read some of the so-called CIT "interviews". As investigative inquires I would be kind in saying that they leave a lot to be desired. Please note that when asked to draw the flight path on a google earth map they all drew different paths. Some of them varied by hundreds of feet. And I believe they all said that the plane crashed into the Pentagon. Add that to the broken light poles, plane debris in and around the Pentagon, DNA results of the remains matching the passenger list, radar and flight data records, other testimony regarding seeing the plane crash into the Pentagon and the sum answer is that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. Indeed they did draw different paths, but the one thing those paths all had in common is that they were all north of the CITGO. That is irreconcilable with the downed light poles, and you should know that if you wished to live up to your username. I didn't say that it wasn't irreconciable, I just say it doesn't matter. The other thing they all had in common is they all terminated at the Pentagon. So why not call them "End at Pentagon" rather than "North of Citgo"? Obviously you have no clue about the layout of the Pentagon vicinity. I am the one who said it was irreconcilable. And it is. If the plane was north of the CITGO there is no way it could have made contact with those downed light poles. I suggest you study the area some more. At this point I really don't give a flying [censored] if the plane impacted the Pentagon or not. The plane in question could not have had contact with those poles if it was north of the CITGO. That little fact proves not only a lie, but a conspiracy by our government. End of story. You keep saying, " if it was noc". That means that noc is a possibility to you, but you recognize that it is not a certainty. It could very well have hit the poles and the pentagon as the evidence suggests. There is nothing that absolutely puts the plane noc.
Posts: 91 Group: BANNED! Member #766 Joined: 07/25/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Feb 13 2009, 10:59 AM Post #16
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	justfacts Feb 12 2009, 08:37 AM The physical and technical evidence sorts out the witness accounts, not the reverse. What physical evidence? The physical evidence IS the crime. It is what brought our suspicions about in the first place. What proof do you have that 5 light poles were struck by a plane on the south side of the Citgo? Photos? Regardless of where everyone who was asked about which side of the gas station the plane was on place the plane??? How many witnesses and "witnesses" were asked about which side of the gas station the plane was on? How many did you ask? And what technical evidence are you referring to? The fraudelant flight and radar data or are you referring to the topography and G forces that prevents the plane from meeting with the "physical evidence". I think you are just trying to force the physical evidence/south side path into existence or bully everyone into the fear based group think so you can still feel warm and fuzzy about your govt and so that you don't have to admit you were wrong. Pretty dead on huh? You honestly can still look in the mirror after watching all these witnesses and still maintain that the plane flew on the SOUTH side of the Citgo as opposed to the NORTH side? What would you say to any of these witnesses if they were standing in front of you? Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Feb 13 2009, 11:09 AM.
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Feb 13 2009, 11:04 AM Post #17
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	pguillory Feb 13 2009, 09:53 AM If it contradicts the light pole damage, then why choose to go down the planted light pole path? The more logical conclusion is that they were wrong or mistaken about the placement of the plane. Why is this so hard to believe? It happens in every investigation. You have conflicting eyewitness tesimony. If ten people said they saw a helicopter hit the pentagon. Do you conclude that a helicopter hit the pentagon, in light of all of the other evidence and witnesses? The problem is not one of you have shown them to be wrong in their placement of the plane. NOT ONE OF YOU. You just keep saying it. Saying it doesn't make it true. At the end of the day you will still be anonymous and afraid to confront these witnesses or others in fear that you will have to accept this very simple detail that everyone was able to recall. Even Lloyd don't want nothing to do with the south side. Don't you get it yet??? You also forget it is not only the placement they would have had to have got drastically wrong, BUT THE REQUIRED BANK THAT THEY ALMOST ALL DESCRIBE THAT IS NOT IN THE OFFICIAL SOUTH SIDE FLIGHT PATH. Did they all imagine that too?
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Feb 13 2009, 11:07 AM Post #18
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	pguillory Feb 13 2009, 10:55 AM There is nothing that absolutely puts the plane noc. Oh except multiple genuine witnesses, on the port, starboard, tail, and nose sides, who work directly next to, in front of or under the flight path who were all asked about a very simple detail; which side of the gas station did the plane fly on. All of them, on every side of the plane, place it on a noc flight path. Sorry. I know it sucks. Get over it. Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Feb 13 2009, 11:41 AM.
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Feb 13 2009, 11:40 AM Post #19
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	justfacts Feb 13 2009, 09:53 AM I didn't say that it wasn't irreconciable, I just say it doesn't matter. The other thing they all had in common is they all terminated at the Pentagon. So why not call them "End at Pentagon" rather than "North of Citgo"? Explain how it "terminated" into the first floor as seen in the surveillance video after approaching from the side. Did it "terminate" into the first floor after pulling up into an ascent? An even better question is what would you call Roosevelt Roberts? A "Doesn't end at the Pentagon" witness?
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


pguillory	Feb 13 2009, 11:48 AM Post #20
Posts: 91 Group: BANNED! Member #766 Joined: 07/25/08	Aldo Marquis CIT Feb 13 2009, 11:04 AM pguillory Feb 13 2009, 09:53 AM If it contradicts the light pole damage, then why choose to go down the planted light pole path? The more logical conclusion is that they were wrong or mistaken about the placement of the plane. Why is this so hard to believe? It happens in every investigation. You have conflicting eyewitness tesimony. If ten people said they saw a helicopter hit the pentagon. Do you conclude that a helicopter hit the pentagon, in light of all of the other evidence and witnesses? The problem is not one of you have shown them to be wrong in their placement of the plane. NOT ONE OF YOU. You just keep saying it. Saying it doesn't make it true. At the end of the day you will still be anonymous and afraid to confront these witnesses or others in fear that you will have to accept this very simple detail that everyone was able to recall. Even Lloyd don't want nothing to do with the south side. Don't you get it yet??? You also forget it is not only the placement they would have had to have got drastically wrong, BUT THE REQUIRED BANK THAT THEY ALMOST ALL DESCRIBE THAT IS NOT IN THE OFFICIAL SOUTH SIDE FLIGHT PATH. Did they all imagine that too? The problem is that they have not been shown to be right. All you are clinging to is a few witnesses telling you where they believe or perceived the plane to be. All of them think or saw the plane hit the pentagon. You give them no credit for that last part. You can't explain the flyover. It is something you have made up. In any event of this scale you can find ten or so people to say many things. Why did Lagasse see the plane yaw into the pentagon? Why did many more than ten people see the plane impact the pentagon? How were they fooled? Why is the damge to the pentagon consistant with impact of fast moving object from south flight path?
Posts: 91 Group: BANNED! Member #766 Joined: 07/25/08


justfacts	Feb 13 2009, 11:51 AM Post #21
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08	Aldo Marquis CIT Feb 13 2009, 11:07 AM pguillory Feb 13 2009, 10:55 AM There is nothing that absolutely puts the plane noc. Oh except multiple genuine witnesses, on the port, starboard, tail, and nose sides, who work directly next to, in front of or under the flight path who were all asked about a very simple detail; which side of the gas station did the plane fly on. All of them, on every side of the plane, place it on a noc flight path. Sorry. I know it sucks. Get over it. I am well over it. A handfull of people think the plane may have flown closer to them then it actually did. So what? They also think it hit the big building. End of story. As Georgia O'Keefe said "there is no there there".
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Feb 13 2009, 12:03 PM Post #22
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	justfacts Feb 13 2009, 08:38 AM Like I said above, they all thought the plane flew closer to them then it actually did. Not a big deal, not difficult to imagine, not difficult to understand considering the circumstances. Also, I've seen and read some of the so-called CIT "interviews". As investigative inquires I would be kind in saying that they leave a lot to be desired. Please note that when asked to draw the flight path on a google earth map they all drew different paths. Some of them varied by hundreds of feet. And I believe they all said that the plane crashed into the Pentagon. Add that to the broken light poles, plane debris in and around the Pentagon, DNA results of the remains matching the passenger list, radar and flight data records, other testimony regarding seeing the plane crash into the Pentagon and the sum answer is that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. Quote: Like I said above, they all thought the plane flew closer to them then it actually did. Not a big deal, not difficult to imagine, not difficult to understand considering the circumstances. As that may be the case in some instances, they ALL STILL PLACE IT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE GAS STATION IN A BANK!!! The bank is NOT in the official flight path so whether they were wrong about how close it was to them is irrelevant. How you would explain Lagasse? He is the biggest fly in your ointment. Are you calling him a liar regarding where he saw the plane? He certainly couldn't have imagined it on the other side of the gas station. Quote: Also, I've seen and read some of the so-called CIT "interviews". As investigative inquires I would be kind in saying that they leave a lot to be desired. As you sit in your comfy little computer chair. Isn't that quaint? Well why don't you let us know when you go out there, for an "investigative inquiry" to let all these key witnesses in key locations that they just imagined the plane on the north side of the Citgo in a bank? Quote: Please note that when asked to draw the flight path on a google earth map they all drew different paths. Some of them varied by hundreds of feet. So? Which side of the gas station did they put it on? Quote: And I believe they all said that the plane crashed into the Pentagon. And how did it do that approaching from the north side of the Citgo? You are just isolating, separating from context, minimizing and then dismissing. Weak my freind. Quote: Add that to the broken light poles, You mean the photos of prefabbed light poles on the ground? What forensic proof do you have that they were struck by 757 wings in light of this evidence we have uncovered? Do you have any forensic reports on the plane's interaction with the light poles? Perhaps they scraped some paint metallic fuselage material from the poles, no? What proof do you have? Your faith in the photos? Faith? Quote: plane debris in and around the Pentagon, And? You mean the very minimal plane debris? The mininal debris field that raised our suspicions isn't he first place and brought us to investigate what happened by asking witnesses what happened? Quote: DNA results of the remains matching the passenger list, Again faith based. Isn't it possible that the remains and the passenger DNA that were supplied to the labs were not those of the passengers? Isn't it possible that the remains and DNA supplied were that of other individuals? Wasn't Wally Miller supplied with the DNA and the remains and told to match them? Could he have actually proved that the remains AND the DNA samples actually came from the passengers??? Yes or no? Could he and the lab technicians in the case of the Pentagon have been fooled if they matched remains to a DNA sample that simply had a passenger name on it? Quote: radar and flight data records, Oh lord. Dude, these have already been proven fraudelant. Haven't you been paying attention? Pilots for 9/11 truth showed you. We showed you. Why do you simply ignore it? Quote: other testimony regarding seeing the plane crash into the Pentagon and the sum answer is that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. Please. try again.
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Feb 13 2009, 12:26 PM Post #23
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: The problem is that they have not been shown to be right. Yes they have. Over and over and over (X13). Quote: All you are clinging to is a few witnesses telling you where they believe or perceived the plane to be. Clinging? I think you got that under control. All we are doing is actually going there and interviewing key witnesses in key locations who all place the plane on the north side. We are also interviewing people we believe are in on it who either agree with the noc or are very silent about it. All YOU are doing is clinging to really bad research and vague published accounts (that we had to clarify for you). We are applying a detailed investigation into a very simple detail. Quote: All of them think or saw the plane hit the pentagon. Um that is a negative good buddy. Especially when the plane approached on the north side. So they didn't see the plane approach on the north side of the Citgo, but according to the almighty Pguillory, they are right about the impact or seeing the impact. Hmmmmm. WOW. Again, it can't hit the building or the light poles when it approaches from the north side of the Citgo. Plus, how do you know what they THINK now? You base your fucking reality on the words they said in the video in a moment of a time. A time where they thought they were just there to tell the story about the alleged impact of Flight 77 to quell conspiracy theories. Do you know what they believe now? Again, Sgt Brooks called our movie an "eye-opener" and that "anything is possible" when it comes to him being fooled. So what do you think Lagasse thinks right now? Did you know that he stands by which side of the gas station the plane is on even now knowing the implications??? Quote: You give them no credit for that last part. You give them no credit for that first part which logically cancels out or negates that "last part". LOL. Quote: You can't explain the flyover. Yeah, we have. The plane approached on the north side in a bank, pulled up into an ascent over/after Rt 27, went to the corner/side of the building, and was seen in the south parking lot banking around the parking lot 50-100 ft over the light poles. Quote: It is something you have made up. How old are you? You can't be this obtuse can you? We made it up? That's it? Like with our imagination? It doesn't have anything to do with the north side flight path/pull-up that prevents an official story impact? Quote: In any event of this scale you can find ten or so people to say many things. Nice generalization. Well go ahead then killer. Go find ten or so people who saw the plane on the south side of the Citgo, hitting light poles, namely pole 1 into Lloyd's cab. Quote: Why did Lagasse see the plane yaw into the pentagon? He didn't. Go back and watch the movie again. He admitted that he didn't see what the plane did because of the fireball. He deduced the "yaw movement" from tons of pictures like this that show the plane at an angle: http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/pentagon&plane.jpeg Also remember that he flinched after he saw the plane to his left, on the north side ahem, and jumped into his car to grab the radio. Quote: Why did many more than ten people see the plane impact the pentagon? What more than 10? Who? Where were they located? What was their vantage point. Who do they work for? Did you actually clarify that they actually saw the plane strike the building or whether they are deducing it? Quote: How were they fooled? A fast moving plane and then an explosion. That's how. Some could also be lying, did you ever consider that? Quote: Why is the damge to the pentagon consistant with impact of fast moving object from south flight path? According to who? You? It is also consistent with explosives. 'Why is the damge to the pentagon consistant with impact from south flight path"??? Um because that is how they designed their simulation. Your disbelief in "why" they put the plane NoC but the damage path SoC helps reinforce your belief that it "has to be" SoC. They are using the severe denial that you are in against you. Doesn't that make you mad? Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Feb 13 2009, 12:35 PM.
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Feb 13 2009, 12:28 PM Post #24
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	justfacts Feb 13 2009, 11:51 AM I am well over it. A handfull of people think the plane may have flown closer to them then it actually did. So what? They also think it hit the big building. End of story. As Georgia O'Keefe said "there is no there there". I know you are. Again, it is more than just the placement you have to deal with, it is the bank MANY of them saw. It has nothing to do with your distraction of "closeness". So are you saying that the plane flew NoC and then hit the "big building"?
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


justfacts	Feb 13 2009, 12:40 PM Post #25
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08	A handfull of people, interviewed by self-proclaimed "investigators" with no previous experience or training in investigation of any sort, almost half a decade after the fact. No complete record of the interviews. No transcripts. And yet we are asked to give superior weight to this collection more than to the physical evidence and the testimony of a miriad of professionals. We are even asked to go so far as to assume that all physical and techincal evidence that contradicts the product of these amatuer sleuths has therefore been manufactured. Sorry reasonable people would beg to differ and dismiss.
Posts: 260 Group: BANNED! Member #874 Joined: 10/02/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
…
30