| 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
| NoC from SoC?; Question about NOC eyewitnesses | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Mar 25 2009, 04:02 PM (543 Views) | |
| espresso | Mar 25 2009, 04:02 PM Post #1 |
|
I'm just curious Are there any eyewitnesses who were physically located south of the citgo station who report a North-of-citgo flight path? |
 |
 
|
| espresso | Mar 26 2009, 09:01 AM Post #2 |
|
None? |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Mar 26 2009, 09:28 AM Post #3 |
|
Yes, Robert Turcios and Levi Stephens. Obviously the most important witnesses were on the citgo station property because these are the ones who have zero perception issues. Since the citgo and the maintenance buildings are the ONLY landmarks in this critical topographical bowl that is a maze of highway ramps naturally it makes perfect sense that most of the locatable witnesses with the best possible vantage points of the plane in the final seconds were at these two significant locations.  Contrary to popular pseudo-skeptic belief....there is NOT good view of the official flight path or alleged impact from 395.. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Mar 26 2009, 10:39 AM.
|
|
|
|
| espresso | Mar 26 2009, 09:42 AM Post #4 |
|
"Are there any eyewitnesses who were physically located south of the citgo station who report a North-of-citgo flight path?" Where was Levi Stephens located? I thought Turcios was on the citgo property.
Being on the citgo property does not eliminate perception issues. Edited by espresso, Mar 26 2009, 09:43 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Mar 26 2009, 10:21 AM Post #5 |
|
It eliminates any issue of which side of the Citgo they observed the aircraft. As you well know, that point has been thoroughly discussed. Your thread topic is NoC from SoC. MM |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Mar 26 2009, 10:35 AM Post #6 |
|
South of the citgo.
Yep on the south side.
As MM pointed out....yes it does concerning where the plane was in relation to the citgo. Being disingenuous only exposes you as a manipulative liar. |
|
|
|
| espresso | Mar 26 2009, 11:14 AM Post #7 |
|
He stated that he was in the south parking lot. Not all of that lot is south of the Citgo station.
He was not physically south of the citgo station...he was still underneath the canopy.
Perception isn't just what people see, but how they perceive it. Since we are dealing with imperfect observers, there is no way to eliminate all perception issues. While a different location may eliminate some possible perception issues, it may also create others. |
|
|
|
| Miragememories | Mar 26 2009, 11:45 AM Post #8 |
|
More obfuscation. This isn't a question where perception is at issue. It's an issue of accurate observation. MM |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Mar 26 2009, 12:09 PM Post #9 |
|
Uhhh yeah so? There are no perspective issues regarding the placement of the plane in relation to the station for people who were on the station's property. Turcios was on the south side of the station. Stephens was about the same position south as the bridge. Bottom line there really isn't a point to your thread because there simply isn't a place south of the citgo that allows for a good full view of EITHER flight path up to the alleged impact point Take this drive down 395 and you can see for yourself: |
|
|
|
| espresso | Mar 26 2009, 12:37 PM Post #10 |
|
It doesn't matter where they were standing. Any time we're dealing with humans, there is no way to eliminate all perspective issues because each person's uniqueness plays into their perspective on the event. 10 people can view the same thing and each one of them can remember things differently due to their own personal perspective. There is no way to eliminate that variable when dealing with human beings.
He was underneath the station, not south of it so he isn't what I'm looking for.
What is the source for that information?
I find it interesting that of the people who place the plane on a North of Citgo flightpath, only one of them was actually south of the citgo station and truthfully he wasn't due south, he was east of the citgo and possibly south by latitude. (The impact point being north of the citgo by latitude) My point here is that since most of these north of citgo eyewitnesses were themselves north of the citgo station there could be some spatial or perpective issues that you haven't investigated. Add to that the fact that the impact point at the pentagon is north of the citgo and we've got 2 factors which may play into the statements made by eyewitnesses to the event. I'm not saying that's what happened but none of your evidence eliminates either of these possibilities. |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Mar 26 2009, 01:05 PM Post #11 |
|
Yeah SO?? Your sweeping generalized irrelevant rant has NOTHING to do with this evidence where they all remember this one simple and critical detail THE SAME. Corroboration is the society accepted scientific process used to validate eyewitness accounts. You are being disingenuous and it exposes you as an intellectually dishonest fraud.
So in other words you are looking for people who would have perception issues working in favor of your faith in the official story. Hilarious.
Levi Stephens.
Uh huh. Of course. Yet you don't find it "interesting" how there is not a single verified first-hand account of ANYONE who specifically places it south of the citgo from ANY position!
Pssst.....people at the citgo are not north of the citgo. Yet they all independently place the plane north of the citgo! Go figure! We talked to them first. They prove where the plane was in relation to the citgo. You are making up perspective issues for them that simply do not exist. The ONLY other landmark in the area where people would have a comparable view is the ANC maintenance buildings and we already know what they all reported.   Unanimous corroboration yet you have ZERO evidence for your faith. Why is your faith in what you were told by the media and govt so strong that you are willing to dismiss scientifically validated independent evidence? Apparently your faith is soundly rooted in war, mass murder, and faulty logic. I'm all for religious freedom but I find that rather demented. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Mar 26 2009, 01:08 PM.
|
|
|
|
| espresso | Mar 26 2009, 02:42 PM Post #12 |
|
It wasn't a rant. I'm just showing that perspective issues ALWAYS exist.
Corroboration: to support with evidence or authority : make more certain Corroboration can make their claims more credible, but it cannot eliminate the possibility of them being wrong.
No, it's simple science. If everyone North of the citgo says NOC, and everyone south of the citgo says SOC, then we have some pretty strong evidence of a perspective issue.
Levi didn't post that. Where is the quote/interview?
Probably because, as you stated: "there simply isn't a place south of the citgo that allows for a good full view of EITHER flight path up to the alleged impact point". Add to that the additional fact that anyone who couldn't see the citgo station isn't going to use it as a point of reference.
I never said they were.
Try to understand the difference between claims and proof, noting that something is not true simply because these people agree that it is.
If that's true, provide proof that no perspective issues exist for these eyewitnesses.
? It doesn't take "faith" to know that people can be wrong and can make mistakes. That's what I'm saying. Your "faith" in these eyewitnesses apparently makes them immune to perspective issues and immune to making mistakes so long as they agree.
It has nothing to do with the government or the media. I'm not saying "you're wrong because they're right". I'm saying that you are wrong because your theory requires no possibility of error on the flightpath claims.
The only faulty logic here is your claim that the witnesses were immune to perspective issues and that their agreement eliminates the possibility of them being wrong. |
|
|
|
| tuatara | Mar 26 2009, 03:52 PM Post #13 |
|
Hand waving again espresso? Ever stood under a low flying large plane? Ever found a perspective issue confuse you as to whether it is to your left or right? |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Mar 26 2009, 04:14 PM Post #14 |
|
That is a fallacious sweeping generalized statement that has nothing to do with the very specific issue being discussed. This further demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty.
That is ANOTHER sweeping generalized fallacious claim further demonstrating your intellectual dishonestly. Of course they can be wrong about something else but corroboration most certainly IS a validation process that most certainly can be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That is what we provide. Your continued doubt after this very specific and very simple right or left claim has been scientifically and irrefutably verified 13 times over is not reasonable. It is based on nothing but your cult like faith in what you were told by the media and govt.
This is further proof that you are a liar. NOBODY SAYS THE PLANE WAS SOC FROM ANY PERSPECTIVE YOU LIAR. Furthermore it could be argued that Edward, Terry Morin, and Levi Stephens were all south of the citgo while Lagasse, Brooks, and Turcios were on the station's property. So that's 6 out of 13 witnesses who were NOT north of the citgo yet they all perfectly corroborate a north side approach. Liar.
Post? What are you talking about? Levi is not a member of this forum. We validated it with him directly and we quoted him in our published article. If you don't believe us take it up with Levi yourself and prove us wrong liar. So far not a single claim we have made about ANY of the witnesses has been proven false. Everything we report is 100% verifiable with the witnesses direct. If you can't provide evidence we lied and refuse to bother verifying our report with the witness then you do not have any room to make accusations. Even though you have shown yourself to be an intellectually dishonest liar.
So you have no valid point and no evidence. Just pure unadulterated cult-like faith in what you were told by the media and govt. Plus we already know that 6 out of the 13 north side approach witnesses were NOT north of the citgo yet they all unanimously support a north side approach.
Great then you are conceding that you have no relevant point and that you have ZERO evidence to support your cult like faith in the official story.
Of course they can be wrong about something else but corroboration most certainly IS a validation process that most certainly can be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That is what we provide. Your continued doubt after this very specific and very simple right or left claim has been scientifically and irrefutably verified 13 times over is not reasonable. It is based on nothing but your cult like faith in what you were told by the media and govt.
I swear you must be learning disabled. If you are trying to judge the location of an airborne object in relation to a landmark removed from your location there can be perspective issues. If you are trying to judge the location of an airborne object in relation to your own location the perception issue is removed. It's that simple. For instance.....I do not believe it would be possible for someone on 395 to mistake the plane as being on the complete other side of the highway, or over Crystal City. Get it yet? If you personally talked to 13 witnesses who were on 395 and they all place the plane north of the highway....would you still doubt them?
No you are creating perception issues when there are none. We know they are correct because their claim has been unanimously and scientifically validated which equals proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Just like if you had spoken with 13 witnesses on 395 and they all unanimously place the plane to their left or towards the citgo. Would you accept it as proof beyond a reasonable doubt of what side of the highway the plane was on?
That is a fallacious sweeping generalized statement that has nothing to do with the very specific issue being discussed. This has nothing to do with a flight path or about any witness being 100% correct about everything they say. It has to do with where the plane was in relation to the citgo station. Period. It is impossible for them all to be simultaneously mistaken in the exact same way about this specific claim just like it would be impossible for there to be 13 independent witnesses on the highway who place the plane on the complete opposite side or over Crystal City.
I never made that claim liar. That is a fallacious sweeping generalized statement that has nothing to do with the very specific issue being discussed. I claim that they are immune to perspective issues regarding where the plane flew in relation to where they were standing. Just like the people on 395 are immune to perspective issues concerning what side of the highway the plane flew. |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Mar 26 2009, 04:18 PM Post #15 |
|
Exactly. It doesn't matter where you are. There are no perception issues when trying to determine where a plane flew in relation to where you are standing. PARTICULARLY if the plane is at tree-top level! The highway analogy is perfect. Everyone on the highway who saw the plane knew which side of the highway it flew. The fact that all of them headed towards DC said it was on their left is PROOF beyond a reasonable doubt (to reasonable people) that it was north of the highway. |
|
|
|
| espresso | Mar 26 2009, 05:03 PM Post #16 |
|
You're kidding, right? Where is the evidence supporting that? Or is it just your belief? Are you saying that if someone sees a plane fly by at hundreds of miles per hour, they should have no trouble determining how far away that plane is from them, and how far it is away from objects on the ground? If your reasoning was sound, we wouldn't need goal posts in football or foul poles in baseball, because there would be no perception issues that might make someone think that the ball went on the wrong side of the demarcation. (And those objects are going a small fraction of the speed that plane was!)
Being on a highway and determining whether a plane is flying left or right parellel to the highway is different than seeing a plane go across your field of vision and attempting to determine if the plane flew to the left or the right over the top of a single building. |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Mar 26 2009, 05:05 PM Post #17 |
|
Put it this way.....of course I believe it is technically "possible" (although extremely unlikely) for a single person to mistake a tree top level plane only dozens of feet away from them as being on their left when it was really on their right. But it is so incredibly unlikely that as soon as that person is independently corroborated ONCE their simple right or left claim becomes proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I bet that NOBODY on the highway mistook the plane as being on the south side of the highway. Those witnesses PROVE the plane was on the north side of the highway. |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Mar 26 2009, 05:13 PM Post #18 |
|
See how you lie? This is NOT my claim liar and you KNOW it. Posing it as a question in a desperate attempt to derail your own thread does not make it less of a lie. This discussion has NOTHING to do with "how far" the plane is from them NOR does it have anything to do with where it is in relation to an arbitrary "object" on the ground liar. It has to do with where the plane was in relation to their own location. Your deceptive analogy regarding a tiny baseball in perfect relation within inches to a tiny boundary line has NOTHING to do with if you can definitively tell whether a massive plane at tree top level flies on your right or left. Liar.
No it is not. It's exact same. If you are on the highway you can definitively tell if the plane flew north or south of the highway. If you are at the CITGO you can definitively tell if the plane flew north or south of the citgo. No matter WHERE you are you can definitively tell if a massive jet at tree top level flew on your left or right. You are looking mighty foolish and/or deceptive right about now if you continue to deny this basic common sense fact. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Mar 26 2009, 05:19 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Mar 26 2009, 05:27 PM Post #19 |
|
Just look at how deceptive this statement is. Whether or not it's exactly "parallel" has NO BEARING on this discussion. And the plane did not "go across" the citgo witnesses "field of vision" to make determining whether it flew on their left or right more difficult. It either flew on the left or right of the station. Period. You are a proven disingenuous liar unless you concede and admit that perception issues are removed when the question is regarding whether a massive jet that flew past you at tree top level was on your right or left in relation to your own location. |
|
|
|
| espresso | Mar 27 2009, 09:01 AM Post #20 |
|
If you don't believe that then how could the people who were at the ANC (north of the citgo station) be able to accurately tell whether the plane flew north of the citgo station or not?
For the eyewitnesses north of the citgo station, it has everything to do with those details because the distance from the citgo to them and the plane to them is how they would determine whether the plane was north or south of the citgo.
Only if their own location was at the citgo. (Only a few of the witnesses were)
The people at the ANC weren't determining whether the plane was on their right or left, they had to determine whether the flightpath of the plane was further away from them than the citgo was or not.
No. The situations are completely different. A - On the highway, you're looking to see where the aircraft is in relation to the vertical plane of the road. B - If the plane is flying left to right and goes over an object in the distance, you must not only determine the distance from you to the aircraft, but the distance from you to the object to determine which side of the object the aircraft flew on. A better way to understand it- Situation A would be like standing on the goal line at a football stadium and watching to see if a player crossed it with the football. Situation B would be like standing on the 50 yard line and trying to determine whether a player 50 yards away has crossed the line or not.
Not all of the eyewitnesses were at the citgo.
The ANC witnesses were north of the flighpath, so their claims of a Noc flight path were not a simple "left or right" claim. |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Mar 27 2009, 09:16 AM Post #21 |
|
We talked to the citgo witnesses FIRST. They independently and unanimously corroborate each other proving the plane was on the north side. The ANC witnesses corroborated them perfectly proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the citgo witnesses were correct. I will concede that the ANC witnesses COULD have had perspective issues but the CITGO witnesses prove their placement of the plane was accurate. Furthermore since they all place the plane directly over the ANC parking lot that pretty much removes the perspective issues from the ANC guys as well since they were on ANC property. The plane was only flew a few dozen feet south of them as corroborated by Lagasse, not hundreds or thousands of feet. Furthermore don't forget how Ed Paik and Terry Morin were both SoC and they prove the plane crossed to the north side of Columbia Pike and directly over the Navy Annex (with no perspective issues) which is every bit as fatal to the official story as NoC, and completely corroborates the ANC witnesses 100%. NoColumbiaPike, ONA, and NoC all PROVE 9/11 was an inside job just as much the witnesses on 395 prove the plane was north of 395. I'm glad to see that you now fully agree that there were no perspective issues with the citgo witnesses proving that the plane did not hit the buidling. So what are you going to do about it? Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Mar 27 2009, 09:31 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Mar 27 2009, 09:28 AM Post #22 |
|
Do you have a learning disability? Why are you comparing a football to a 90 ton jet? The question is whether or not someone can definitively tell if 90 ton jet at tree top level only dozens of feet away from them flew on their left or right. You seem to think the answer is yes for people on 395 but no for people at the citgo. You are literally arguing that there are only "perspective issues" for the people you do not want to be right! There is no logic to such an idiotic claim and you can't spin your way out of this one. Your admission that the answer is yes for the people on 395 demonstrates that you have no choice but to agree that the citgo witnesses have been proven correct. Please tell me what will be your next step in fighting for 9/11 truth and justice. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Mar 27 2009, 09:30 AM.
|
|
|
|
| espresso | Mar 27 2009, 09:48 AM Post #23 |
|
It's an analogy. I was not comparing a football to a 90 ton jet. I was comparing the principles which are the same in both situations. I was pointing out that determining the location of a football in relation to goal lines, etc is the same principle at use in determining the flightpath of a plane in relation to a highway/gas station. I know that you understood this but you decided to attack my analogy by falsely suggesting that I was comparing the 2 objects, rather than the principles involved. Now that I've spelled it out do you agree that the same principles are involved in both situations?
That question has no bearing on the ANC eyewitnesses.
Don't put words in my mouth. I am stating that it would be EASIER to tell whether a plane was left or right of a long highway (vertical plane) than a single object (point). That doesn't tell us who is right or wrong. |
|
|
|
| espresso | Mar 27 2009, 09:49 AM Post #24 |
|
Again you're putting words in my mouth. It is impossible to completely eliminate all perception issues when we are dealing with human beings. Withesses unanimously agreeing about something (or corroborating each other) doesn't prove that they are correct. Let me know when you understand that. |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Mar 27 2009, 10:27 AM Post #25 |
|
You are contradicting yourself proving you are a liar. You agree that there are no perception issues for the people on 395 regarding what side of the highway the plane flew.
You are quite wrong. It happens all the time. Independent witness corroboration is often considered proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. It is quite often the very basis for convictions. In fact even you believe the witnesses on 395 prove the plane was north of 395. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
5:36 PM Dec 5
