| 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! |
| Adam Syed on Cincinnati TV - Pentagon Anomalies & 'NSA' doco | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Oct 26 2009, 02:20 PM (1,602 Views) | |
| Lin Kuei | Oct 26 2009, 02:20 PM Post #1 |
|
http://www.911blogger.com/node/21720 |
 |
 
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Oct 26 2009, 06:40 PM Post #2 |
|
Good stuff, Maynard. |
|
|
|
| Lin Kuei | Oct 26 2009, 07:14 PM Post #3 |
|
Adam's entry has already been taken down from the front page of 911blogger. 
|
|
|
|
| Chris Sarns | Nov 19 2009, 03:18 PM Post #4 |
|
After looking into the evidence CIT gathered I found some omissions and misrepresentations in the "National Security Alert" video. All 4 CIT witnesses who could see the Pentagon said the plane hit the Pentagon. Sgt. Brooks, Sgt. Lagasse and Sean Boger said they SAW the plane hit the Pentagon. They all had an unobstructed view of the impact. Robert Turcios said he couldn't see it hit but it was on a straight line into the Pentagon and it collided. He had a clear view of all but the bottom floors. When Craig asked Robert if the plane flew over the Pentagon, he said NO. http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/videos-pentaconsgv.html Roosevelt Roberts saw a plane fly away to the south-west. Craig insists he said it flew away to the north. It does not matter. A plane approaching from the west could not make either turn. Roosevelt is NOT a witness for flyover. http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/4048/rrflightpathscrop.jpg The purple path is what Mr. Roberts surmised from what he saw - the plane flying away to the south-west. The red path combines what the north path witnesses saw combined with what Roosevelt saw. The turning radius is about 350 feet. An airliner requires a 5,000 foot turning radius or more. Erik Dihle CIT misrepresented this second hand account by including the person who thought the plane kept going and left out the part where someone said the plane hit the building. “The first few seconds it was very confusing, we couldn’t even tell . . . some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going . . . somebody else was yelling no, no, no, the jet ran into the building." It is not known if the people saying the plane kept going saw it themselves or heard it from someone else and no assumption can be made. Edited by Chris Sarns, Nov 19 2009, 03:25 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Avenger | Nov 19 2009, 11:04 PM Post #5 |
|
Robert Turcios did say he saw it lift up a little bit in order to miss an overhead sign. I wouldn't call that a straight line. Besides, he saw this from north of the gas station. If it flew north, it flew over. You can talk about misrepresentations all you want. Nothing will change that fact. I could accuse you of misrepresentation. Why did you not mention the fact that he said he saw it pick up? That is not a straight line. Maybe you meant that it flew in a straight line AFTER it pulled up, but how would it hit between the 1st and 2nd floors? Wouldn't it hit somewhere near the top after pulling up to miss that sign? Or maybe fly over? 
Edited by Avenger, Nov 19 2009, 11:18 PM.
|
|
|
| Avenger | Nov 19 2009, 11:17 PM Post #6 |
|
Yep. North of Gitgo. If it flew north, it flew over. |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Nov 20 2009, 07:10 PM Post #7 |
|
Your ridiculous personal discredit campaign against us falls flat because it's based on lies. Stop it Sarns. It only makes you look silly. We haven't misrepresented anything and we were quite clear in National Security Alert that the witnesses believed the plane hit. We also made it clear that the interviews were "edited for conciseness" and that the full versions are "available to view for free on CitizenInvestigationTeam.com". Referencing a presentation that we reference in our presentation while claiming we "omitted" it is a lie Sarns. It's clear this info has you in psychological turmoil since your mind is unable to dismiss the north side evidence yet you are deathly afraid of being ostracized from your groupthink clique at 911blogger. So you pretend you are thinking independently by publicly attacking us personally regarding the flyover (disinfo, con men, fruit loops etc) while ironically ACCEPTING the north side approach, staged light poles, manipulated security video, and planted bombs in the building, yet asserting your ridiculous disintegrating 737 theory. The funny part about all this is that you don't even realize how much your clique is secretly laughing at you (not a single one will EVER back up your absurd theory) while simultaneously cheering you on simply because you are personally attacking CIT. Entire slow moving large passenger planes can't be completely disintegrated from bombs at all let alone at ground level without leaving a crater in the ground! For your own sanity, let it go and go back to preaching to the converted about building 7. |
|
|
|
| Chris Sarns | Nov 21 2009, 11:12 AM Post #8 |
|
You pick a detail and ignore the net result. Robert is clearly saying that the plane hit the pentagon. When Craig asked him if the plane flew over he said NO. It doesn't get any clearer than that. Can you admit that all 4 CIT witnesses who could see the Pentagon said the plane hit the Pentagon? |
|
|
|
| Chris Sarns | Nov 21 2009, 11:15 AM Post #9 |
|
Do you think the 4 witnesses who said the plane hit the building are lying? One cannot be "deceived" about seeing a plane fly into a building. That assertion is absurd. |
|
|
|
| Chris Sarns | Nov 21 2009, 11:24 AM Post #10 |
|
"Referencing a presentation that we reference in our presentation while claiming we "omitted" it is a lie." The lie is yours. You know that most people won't watch all the interviews and learn all the facts. I was the first to do so. Your fraud has been exposed. Your omission of these critical facts that refute you flyover theory is deliberate misrepresentation. You claim they support flyover when they do exactly the opposite. Edited by Chris Sarns, Nov 21 2009, 09:15 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Nov 21 2009, 02:28 PM Post #11 |
|
Your desperation is so thick you could cut it with a knife. We have never claimed that they "support" a flyover and have been 100% open and honest with the fact that they believe in an impact since day one INCLUDING in National Security Alert where we state it outright in the narrative. We could not have possibly been any more clear. EVERYONE who views the information has understood this but you. And , um, no you are not the "first" to view The PentaCon Smoking Gun Version. NOBODY has once accused us of claiming that the witnesses "support" a flyover in National Security Alert or ANY of our presentations. You'd have to be a complete idiot or a liar to make such an assertion. Your insistence on continuing this campaign of yours indicates you are both. But that does not change the fact that their placement of the plane on the north side scientifically proves a flyover regardless of what the witnesses were deceived into believing. I know it makes you feel good to lash out because this info is causing you so much psychological turmoil and causing your "9/11 Truth Activist" world to crumble. I know you are doing everything you can to preserve your relationship with Keogh, Ashley-Hoffman etc since without them you are nobody. It won't work Sarns. Nobody in their right mind will EVER support your foolish north side/staged light poles/disintegrating 737 theory. Nobody. You are a laughing stock and the last of a dying breed of fools who continue to publicly attack CIT and expose their intellectual dishonesty in the progress. |
|
|
|
| Chris Sarns | Nov 21 2009, 02:56 PM Post #12 |
|
Double talk. You did not include their statements that refute your flyover theory. Then you claim that their statements prove flyover. That's fraud. "But the fact is that a flyover is 100% proven by the Citgo station witnesses alone." http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=18306&view=findpost&p=10778662 |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Nov 21 2009, 03:14 PM Post #13 |
|
You are the one using "double talk" by accusing us of claiming the witnesses did not believe the plane hit. Out of 3 years and hundreds of thousands of views of the info NOBODY has been stupid enough to make such a ridiculous accusation. Furthermore NONE of our detractors (or supporters) who have published anything on this topic are willing to assert that it's possible for the plane to be on the north side of the gas station and not fly over. Hoffman, Arabesque, Caustic Logic and ALL of them are able to easily understand how physics and science require a north side plane to fly over. You are no different than the people whose minds shut down after watching the building 7 collapse video and refuse to believe it was controlled demo. Physics and science do not lie. North side approach proves a flyover. Why do you think you are somehow smarter than EVERYONE on God's green earth who has studied this information closely and published ANYTHING on the topic at all? I guarantee that Hoffman is simultaneously laughing at you while silently cheering you on because of your inability to emotionally control yourself and clear willingness to attack us personally. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Nov 21 2009, 03:16 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Chris Sarns | Nov 21 2009, 03:58 PM Post #14 |
|
More double talk. Who do you think you are kidding? I am simply pointing out that you did not include the statements your witnesses made that refute your flyover theory. I have spent the last 3 1/2 years exposing fraud in the NIST reports. Now I'm exposing the fraud in your report. Edited by Chris Sarns, Nov 21 2009, 04:00 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Nov 21 2009, 04:27 PM Post #15 |
|
Now you're approaching quadruple talk. Your attacks are transparent and fool nobody. I doubt you are even fooling yourself which would make you the fraud. Your disintegrating north side 737 theory will forever be nothing more than a joke supported by absolutely no studied or published researcher on this topic on earth yet National Security Alert has an unprecedented amount of endorsements from many others infinitely more credentialed, intelligent, reputable, and studied on the info than you. It's downright comical the way you think that YOU and only YOU have been able to figure out this alleged diabolical plot where we supposedly convinced anyone who backs our efforts that the witnesses all "support" or believe in a flyover thereby CONNING people like Gage, Griffin, Asner and thousands of others into supporting National Security Alert. You're a acting like a fool Sarns and the more you continue with this hollow campaign against us personally as a means to deal with your psychological turmoil on this issue the more whatever credibility you may have ever had in the past will continue to slip away. |
|
|
|
| Chris Sarns | Nov 21 2009, 09:12 PM Post #16 |
|
Attacks? I told the truth about what your witnesses said, you did not. You talk about me and not the evidence. Tell us again how these 4 witnesses were "deceived" into just thinking they saw a plane fly into the Pentagon. Tell us how 4 witnesses saying the plane hit the Pentagon proves flyover. |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Nov 21 2009, 10:25 PM Post #17 |
|
Yes attacks. Personal attacks. I had no idea who you were until you started publicly calling us "fruit loops" and a bunch of other things so I reached out by contacting you via phone as I do all our detractors. You responded by THREATENING us on behalf of Richard Gage only to step up your personal attacks against us online. If it wasn't for your irrational emotionally out of control behavior and personal attacks I would have never given your name a second thought.
Wrong. We have told the truth about what the witnesses said since day one. It is YOU who is outright lying about what we have said (or didn't say). I dare you to survey ten or twenty supporters of this info (preferably our endorsers) and ask them if they were convinced because we created the impression that the witnesses all believed in a flyover. You won't find a single one who got that impression because we have always been 100% clear that this is not the case. You are the first to ever make such an accusation out of 100's of thousands of views. Nobody walks away with that impression after viewing National Security Alert so if you did it's because you either have difficulty comprehending English or else the attention span of a 6 year old with A.D.D.
Please. As I said I had no idea who the hell you were until you publicly and personally attacked us unprovoked. We always stick to the evidence but yes we will respond to irrational people like you who can't come to terms with the implications of this evidence and choose to attack us personally as a result.
Are you kidding me? Do you REALLY still not get this? Sheila Casey put it very eloquently:
It's a similar concept as to how the perpetrators were able to pull off a triple covert controlled demolition of 3 massive high rises in downtown Manhattan in the middle of broad daylight on live tv. The fact that witnesses were fooled into believing the towers fell from the plane impacts and subsequent fire does not refute the evidence for controlled demolition. The fact that the witnesses were fooled into believing the plane hit the Pentagon does not change the FACT that it is physically impossible for a plane on the north side to have caused the physical damage. Just ask Jim Hoffman.
Sure. It's answered in detail here: Why does it matter if the plane flew north or south of the gas station? Science and physics prove that it is impossible for a plane on the north side to cause the physical damage. This is a non-controversial scientific fact that is unanimously agreed upon by all CIT supporters and detractors alike who have ever published ANYTHING on this topic at all. This is why we have an unprecedented endorsement list for National Security Alert while your disintegrating north side approach 737 theory is supported by NOBODY and will ultimately make you a laughingstock if you keep on with it. One of these days this will sink in with you and you'll realize what a stubborn old fool you've been. |
|
|
|
| Avenger | Nov 22 2009, 03:35 AM Post #18 |
|
The net result is that the plane would not lift up to miss the sign and then hit between the first and second floor.
Yeah, we all know that. But, that is not physically possible. Not from north of the gas station.
Do you believe it flew into the building or do you believe in this disintegrating plane theory? If you do, then I think you should respond to Craig's point about this leaving craters in the ground? |
|
|
|
| Chris Sarns | Nov 22 2009, 11:32 AM Post #19 |
|
Our first conversation was very cordial. I told you I was confident that you had proven the north side approach but I could see no evidence of flyover. I asked you to drop the flyover part but you said you would not. It was all down hill from there. Edited by Chris Sarns, Nov 22 2009, 11:34 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Avenger | Nov 22 2009, 11:40 AM Post #20 |
|
Drop the flyover part?? In favor of this disintegrating plane theory? Can you please elaborate on your theory? Why was the lawn undamaged? |
|
|
|
| Chris Sarns | Nov 22 2009, 12:04 PM Post #21 |
|
But not the whole truth. You're trying to turn this in to a personal pissing match is a JREF tactic. The point here is: Leaving out the part of the interviews where they say the plane hit the Pentagon is misleading and unconscionable. A real investigator reveals ALL the pertinent facts, not just the ones that support a chosen theory. Claiming that the Citgo witnesses prove 100% that the plane flew over the Pentagon is fraud. Fraud: somebody who deliberately deceives somebody else Edited by Chris Sarns, Nov 22 2009, 12:16 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Chris Sarns | Nov 22 2009, 12:11 PM Post #22 |
|
In favor of nothing. I just offered a possible explanation for the known evidence. I don't need to prove it nor will I try. I did not make a video and claim I had proof, Craig did. He has NO proof or witnesses of flyover. He has 4 witnesses who unequivocally refute his theory. Edited by Chris Sarns, Nov 22 2009, 12:12 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Avenger | Nov 22 2009, 12:15 PM Post #23 |
|
He did say in National Security Alert that the witnesses thought the plane hit the building. But, again, that is not physically possible from north of Citgo. And the plane bomb theory is not plausible. |
|
|
|
| Avenger | Nov 22 2009, 12:39 PM Post #24 |
|
In favor of nothing? No, wait a minute.
It is not possible and has already been refuted. The only plausible explanation is flyover. You say it's absurd to say the witnesses were fooled into believing the plane entered the building, and yet the plane bomb theory requires that the plane is destroyed before entering the building.
There are several videos by CIT. Did you forget about Aldo?
What plane do you think Roosevelt Roberts saw?
Again, it could not have hit from north of Citgo. Fireball blocked their view. Assumed impact because they were expecting impact and fireball seemed to confirm that expectation. Edited by Avenger, Nov 22 2009, 12:51 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Chris Sarns | Nov 22 2009, 01:09 PM Post #25 |
|
Wrong! Look at the witnesses video. Craig has the witnesses stand where they ere standing standing in 9/11. The Pentagon is clearly visible. Sgt. Brooks: As you can see that's the impact point, and as you can see right now, anybody standing in this current location where I'm at, can actually see that, uh, straight on right there. There's nothing blocking, there was actually nothing blocking at the time. So there was a straight shot. Read their statements. Craig: Did you see it fly over the Pentagon? Robert: Fly over the Pentagon??? [He was surprised anyone would ask that question] No, the only thing I saw was a direct line to go into the Pentagon, collided. Collide: crash into something Craig: Were you actually able to see the plane hit the building? Sgt. Brooks: Correct Craig: Did you see the plane hit the building? Sgt. Lagasse: Yes. |
|
|
|
| 2 users reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Members: tuatara
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic » |
4:43 AM Nov 26
