| 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! |
| Witnesses List Broken Down; No such thing as 104 "impact" witnesses | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 15 2008, 03:11 PM (4,667 Views) | |
| Avenger | Jan 21 2008, 08:16 PM Post #26 |
![]()
|
So you believe it hit from north of the CITGO? Edit: And do you have any pictures of the downed light poles? Where were they positioned before they were downed? Edited by Avenger, Jan 21 2008, 10:53 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jan 21 2008, 11:44 PM Post #27 |
|
Ok then you believe that all these witnesses saw a plane that approached from the North of the Citgo to the Pentagon. None of them saw this plane hitting light poles so that event didn't take place. None of them mention a trail of smoke from the plane which contradicts the released "video". All video evidence and 911 calls have been confiscated and never released by the FBI. 3 camera angles which would have confirmed a South side flight path were removed from the Citgo Gas Station video. Their positions were documented in advance of this video's release. The Sheraton Hotel video has never been released and if I read correctly the story now is that there never was a Sheraton Hotel video..... So now let's hear an explanation for how this plane approaching from the North of the Citgo missed the 'Do Not Enter' sign and managed to level off 5' from the ground in time to hit the Pentagon and what could possibly have caused the damage inside the Pentagon if it wasn't the plane? Have you looked over the Leo Titus photographs? Edited by Domenick DiMaggio, Jan 21 2008, 11:45 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| bileduct | Jan 22 2008, 02:44 AM Post #28 |
|
28:34: Robert Turcios: All I saw was it was a silver colored airplane.... I Could not uhh.... it was very quick uhh.... I would say about 2 seconds when I saw it then I lost sight of it behind the mound that's when I ran up to get a look at it. 24:57 Robert Turcios: I could not totally see when it hit the Pentagon, all I see is uhh, all I saw was it headed straight to it. Then uh, then the big uh explosion, the fireball and lots of smoke.
You appear to be paraphrasing. Those words were not uttered in the video at all. Here is what was actually said: 25:12 You: Ok, did you see it act.. so you didn't see it hit the Pentagon? Robert Turcios: No, the views was not uh, it was obstructed still, I could only see the fireball from the explosion.
Note the following exchanges - 26:52 Robert Turcios: As I said before, it seemed, to me it seemed like it was gonna crash onto the street here, but it.. but it did uh, I saw it lift, take a, go up a little bit, headed towards the Pentagon. You: It looked like it was gonna crash into the street but it picked up a little bit. 25:35 You: Did you see it fly over the Pentagon? Robert Turcios: Fly over the Pentagon? You: Yeah. Robert Turcious: No, uh, the only thing I saw was when it was direct uh, you know, direct line to go into the Pentagon. That he saw the plane "pull up" ("lift up" or "pick up" as he says) does not prove anything. It merely indicates that he believes the plane he saw altered it's angle of approach upward. This would appear to make sense as his testimony also states that he believed that the plane was going to hit the ground before it reached the Pentagon. |
![]() |
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 22 2008, 10:30 AM Post #29 |
|
He specifically says that he saw the plane pull up AFTER he ran up to the mound so clearly the mound wasn't obstructing his view of the impact. He says that all he could see was the fireball. I don't get what you don't get.
You are wrong. Clearly you are not aware of the Pentagon security video, the FDR, or the physical damage because ALL of these things are 100% irreconcilable with a pull up over the highway like he describes. Consult with some pilots, do some research, and report back to me in this regard because at the moment you haven't a clue what you are talking about. Rob Balsamo:
Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Jan 22 2008, 10:31 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 22 2008, 10:35 AM Post #30 |
|
So Turcios was wrong about the pull-up that he describes? |
![]() |
|
| bileduct | Jan 22 2008, 11:29 AM Post #31 |
|
His exact words were "pick up a little bit." If your interpretation is correct then your witness is clearly mistaken. He clearly states that he lost sight of the plane as it went behind the mound. The Citgo Station is 950 feet from the Highway, and 1600 feet from the Pentagon. The plane was travelling at 530mph, or 777 feet per second. Let's assume for the moment that the plane travelled approximately 300 feet (though in all likelihood it was much further) toward the Pentagon before it was obscured from view by the mound. Your witness had less than 1 SECOND to run, from a standing start, the 10 or so yards to the base of the mound. Impossible. Given the fact that no other witnesses reported seeing the plane pull up over the highway (let alone fly over the Pentagon), and that it is now proven that your witness could not have possibly moved the distance required in the prescribed time, the probability of your witness' "pull up" testimony, as you have interpreted it, being accurate is negligible.
Negative. I have just proven that your witness could not have possibly been where he claims to have been to witness the "pull up" as you have interpreted it. Therefore, as there are no other witnesses to the claim, it didn't happen. Remember, Lagasse claimed that the plane was a silver, American Airlines jet that impacted with the Pentagon. Brooks claimed a plane impacted with the Pentagon. Turcios claimed the plane was silver and that he believed it to be on a trajectory to hit the Pentagon. But your witnesses got all of these things wrong as well, right? "Ok, what I'd seen then was the plane going directly in front of the building and what seem to be a quick second we just seen a 'boom' and everything just, a great ball of uh fire just go straight up in the air. And it just, right on the impact. Just a great ball of fire." Edited by bileduct, Jan 22 2008, 11:46 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 22 2008, 11:47 AM Post #32 |
![]()
|
Putrid. Is that what he is saying? Is that what you believe? The FDR is irreconcilable with the Pentagon security video, the FDR and Pentagon security video are irrconcilable with Robert's pull-up AND the north side approach, and the physical damage is irreconcilable with Robert's pull-up and the FDR. Did that help ya? Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Jan 22 2008, 11:51 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| bileduct | Jan 22 2008, 11:53 AM Post #33 |
|
I have just proven that Turcios could not have possibly been in a position to see a "pull up", as interpreted by CIT. And given the lack of corroborating evidence (ie: just ONE other witness to the alleged event), it therefore did not happen. |
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 22 2008, 11:54 AM Post #34 |
|
So...you're saying that Turcios is wrong because it disagrees with those things? - Pentagon Security Video - FDR - Physical Damage |
![]() |
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 22 2008, 11:54 AM Post #35 |
![]()
|
Did ya forget the part where he starts to walk out looking around for where the source of the loud jet sound was coming from??????? The part where he walks closer to the mound???????? Watch the video again, Biley. Oh and stop and think why he may have lost sight of it behind the mound. Because after he started to walk out, looking around for the source of the loud jet noise, he more than likely ducked as he saw the plane roar over near the north side of the gas station, then looked up to lose sight of it behind the mound and began to run up at the same time. Just curious Biley, did Robert lose sight of the plane as it approached on the north side of the gas station? Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Jan 22 2008, 12:03 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 22 2008, 11:58 AM Post #36 |
![]()
|
No, I am not saying Turcios is wrong. Where did I say that, Nicepants? And what does the FDR and Security video being proven to be irreconcilable with each other, problematic, and obviously fraudelant have to do with what Robert saw? Or are you just repeating "Robert Turcios is wrong" to get us looped into your little mind/word game? Tell me, can you explain the FDR being irreconcilable with security video, Nicepants? I know I can. |
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 22 2008, 12:03 PM Post #37 |
|
is Turcios was wrong about the pull-up that he describes? Or are you saying that all of that other evidence is wrong? Edited by nicepants, Jan 22 2008, 12:03 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 22 2008, 12:04 PM Post #38 |
![]()
|
No. Turcios was not wrong about the pull-up. |
![]() |
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 22 2008, 12:05 PM Post #39 |
![]()
|
No we are saying all the evidence is fabricated and this eyewitness is correct about what the plane did. Do you understand, Mr. Threadwaster? |
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 22 2008, 12:12 PM Post #40 |
|
Yes, I understand. I would also like to know: - Why did none of your other witnesses corroborate Turcio's account of a "pull up"? - How were you able to determine that Turcio's "pull up" account was not simply an illusion due to his perspective? - How significant was the pull-up? 5 degrees? 10 degrees? - How much time passed between when Turcios reports the plane heading towards impact on the highway, until the completion of the "pull up" maneuver? |
![]() |
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 22 2008, 12:13 PM Post #41 |
|
bile and pants, The official story is held to the reported speeds, flight path, bank and descent angles, and limitations of a standard commercial jet since this is the lie that they have told. None of those values are known for the north of the citgo decoy jet that they used to pull off this deception. |
![]() |
|
| bileduct | Jan 22 2008, 12:25 PM Post #42 |
|
Wow. He "more than likely ducked." Deduce much? The Citgo Station is 950 yards from the highway sign. The plane was travelling at 777 feet per second. There was 1.22 seconds from the moment it passed over Turcios' head to reaching the sign over the highway, during which you are now suggesting he ducked, turned around, then looked up to find the plane and started running up the mound to catch the plane performing a "pull up" maneuver as you have interpreted? 1.22 seconds? That's phenomenal. Did he lose sight of the plane when it approach from the north side? Well, that's an interesting question. You claim that he didn't see an American Airlines jet and it has now been proven that he could not have been in a position to see a "pull up" as you have interpreted. Noone else corroborates the story of a "pull up" as you have interpreted it. I would consider his entire testimony to therefore be unreliable. Edited by bileduct, Jan 22 2008, 12:31 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| bileduct | Jan 22 2008, 12:28 PM Post #43 |
|
Ahhh! The DECOY JET. Interesting, I notice you have one set of witnesses that corroborate the NOC theory. You also have another set of witnesses that corroborate the white plane (therefore not AA77) theory. Answer me this - how many of the NOC witnesses are white plane witnesses? |
![]() |
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 22 2008, 12:53 PM Post #44 |
![]()
|
Um yeah, I deduced that based on the evidence at hand. 1.22? Really? You know how fast the plane was traveling? Really? How so? Perhaps he saw the plane pull-up AFTER the highway sign and from his perspective it was over it, doesn't change that he saw it pull-up. Why would he add that detail? Did you know WE found HIM? Did you know that he is very shy and introverted? Did you know that he did not want to go on camera? Why would he add this detail if he were "incorrect" or "not telling the truth"? Does this detail about the plane being on the north side go hand in hand with the north side approch, yes or no? |
![]() |
|
| bileduct | Jan 22 2008, 01:23 PM Post #45 |
|
You deduced that someone more than likely ducked. What evidence allows you to deduce that he ducked?
300MPH = 440FPS = 2.16 seconds 400MPH = 586FPS = 1.62 seconds 500MPH = 733FPS = 1.29 seconds 530MPH = 777FPS = 1.22 seconds (Official Story speed) Let's say the plane was going at 300MPH. You're telling me he had 2.16 seconds to duck, scan the sky for the plane, then run up a mound (the base of which was at least 5 yards away, assuming he wandered out from under the canopy) to see the plane "pull up", as you have interpreted, before the sign? Two of your witnesses have stated that it was around 2 seconds from the moment they saw the plane to the moment they, and let's be charitable, saw the fireball. That would put the plane up around the 500MPH mark in line with the Official Story.
Perhaps? Are you deducing again? So now you're saying you're not so certain that the plane pulled up at the highway? Haven't you stamped the "pull up" at the highway event all over your no plane imact theories as proof positive that the plane flew over the Pentagon? Isn't it a little late to be changing your story now? Craig Ranke: So it flew up to go over that? (Camera focused on highway sign) Robert Turcios: Yes, it uhh. Craig Ranke: Ok. If your deduction is correct, wouldn't it be a little counter-productive to "pull up" in order to go over something you've just gone through?
Why would Lagasse say that it was a silver, American Airlines jet that impacted with the Pentagon when CIT have already proven the plane to be an unmarked white jet that flew over the Pentagon?
Turcios claims he witnessed a "pull up", as you have interpreted, that I have now proven he could not have possibly been in a position to witness - an event that is not corroborated by anyone else, including NOC witnesses - therefore his testimony is unreliable. |
![]() |
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 22 2008, 02:18 PM Post #46 |
|
You can still see the Pentagon even while standing in front of the mound which was smaller on 9/11.![]() You have not proven that it is impossible for him to have seen the pull-up. If anything the part that is impossible is the "lost sight of it" claim. No matter how you look at it the plane was on the north side which proves that it HAD to have pulled up. That is why you are ignoring the proven north side claim and picking apart Robert's words as a straw man argument instead. |
![]() |
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 22 2008, 02:25 PM Post #47 |
![]()
|
Read up and apply a little reading comprehension.
Ah "let's say", as oppose to "we can say". So you DON'T know the speed the plane was traveling at. Thank you for conceding that.
He didn't scan the sky and yes I believe he could. Who said "before" the sign? I said over based on statements, but I concede that it could have been after it passed the sign, giving it the impression that it was over that sign. Perhaps that is the last place he remembers the plane being when he saw the pull-up.
That doesn't mean they are 100% regarding this estimate, and even if they were it could all happen in 2 seconds.
No I am conceding the point that it may have been after the highway sign that he saw it pull up.
No. We gave an approximate position based on what he said. We never applied certainty to anything other than the fact that the plane was on the north side and that the plane pulled up. Could it have been after the highway sign, of course. Does it change the pull up? Nope. Let me repeat it one more time, so we can make sure you are paying attention. You ready? Are you paying attention? Ok read it again, We never applied certainty to anything other than to the fact that the plane was on the north side and that the plane pulled up. Here one more time, in case you were confused. Ready? We never applied certainty to anything other than to the fact that the plane was on the north side and that the plane pulled up.
Gosh you guys are so adorable when you get all sneaky and dopey with these little traps you try to set. How did we get from me conceding that the pull-up could have been after (also could have been over) the highway sign to me abandoning a pull-up completely? Let me repeat it again: We never applied certainty to anything other than to the fact that the plane was on the north side and that the plane pulled up.
Not if it was pulling up on its way. He also said he saw it pull up over the highway sign, he also said he saw it pull up "headed toward the Pentagon". So did he just imagine it, Biley? If he did, why is it not only on the north side but also pullin up if this plane hit the building the way the gov't says it did? If it is on the north side doesn't logic dictate that the plane would pull up LIKE OUR WITNESS SAW???
Why would Lagasse say it was on the north side if it really impacted the Pentagon? We can do this all day, darling.
Ok, cuz bileduct says so. So let it be written, so let it be done...hahahaha. You didn't prove anything, you didn't even prove how fast the plane was going...you know why? Because you can't. The north side corroborates the pull-up, don't you get it? If the plane was on the north side, that means it did not hit the building. If it did not hit the building, that means it pulled up...LIKE A NORTH SIDE WITNESS SAW IT DO. FYI, -Brooks corroborates the height of the plane at pull-up time, when it goes "in front of the building"... watch his hand. He also concedes he could have been fooled. -Skarlet of Punkprincess.com could not believe the plane had hit, she wanted to say that the "plane banked up at the last minute". -Dave Statter interviewed 1 to 2 witnesses who said that "the pilot tried to avert the building" and that the plane "went to the side of the building and not directly in". |
![]() |
|
| bileduct | Jan 22 2008, 02:33 PM Post #48 |
|
If the mound is so low then why did Turcios lose sight of the plane behind it and then run up the mound?
Robert Turcios: All I saw was it was a silver colored airplane.... I Could not uhh.... it was very quick uhh.... I would say about 2 seconds when I saw it then I lost sight of it behind the mound that's when I ran up to get a look at it. So your witness is indeed making impossible statements. I am glad we agree.
All four of the NOC witnesses in the Pentacon video offer testimony that contradicts each other (and themselves) on multiple occasions. There is no proof that the plane was on the north side, only conflicting testimony. Furthermore, there are no witnesses to a "pull up", as you interpret it, and there are also no witnesses to a flyover. And finally, all of the NOC witnesses in the Pentacon video offer testimony that conflicts with your white/decoy plane theory.
LOL. You have absolutely no idea what a straw man argument is. |
![]() |
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 22 2008, 02:50 PM Post #49 |
![]()
|
Because he ducked? Because it was smaller than it was on the day we interviewed him and tall enough to cause him to lose sight of the plane for split second. Did you noticed how he stopped mid way on the mound in our interview? He didn't have to run up the WHOLE MOUND, Biley. Use your coconut. Why would he add the detail about the mound if he was lying or making things up?
No you don't agree with me.
Do all four contradict the north side approach?
No proof other than corroborating testimony about which side of the gas station the plane was on, Mr. Reachy Desperate.
Really? Robert saw the plane pull-up. That is a witness. How do you know there are no witnesses to a flyover? You heard the 911 calls and read the transcrpits that were confiscated and sequestered? You spoke with everyone in the area? You are convinced a news reporter or news agency would cover this in detail if it had happened, even after two planes just hit the towers and reporters went to the alleged impact side and only interviewed and reported witnesses who thought it hit? Why didn't Dave Statter do an on camera interview with the witness who thought the "pilot tried to avert the building" or "went to the side of the building and not directly in"? Wouldn't that be a flyover witness? Absence of evidence is not evidence.
actually, no. Brooks doesn't. Niether does Robert since he was sure it did not look like an AA. All of them support it because it was on the north side, aren't you getting this. If it was on the north side, then it's pretty likely that it pulled up, if it was on the north side and pulled up that means is pretty likely that it didn't hit, and if it was on the north side, pulled up, didn't hit, then it is pretty likely that it didn't look like AA. What about Levi Stephens, he was ADAMANT that it did not look like an AA. You forgot about him darling.
You don't even know what know what 'deduce' means. Why don't you LOL yourself into a wiki entry, pal? |
![]() |
|
| nicepants | Jan 22 2008, 02:59 PM Post #50 |
|
Methinks you don't know what that phrase (bolded) means. It means that the LACK of anyone reporting a flyover is not: - Evidence that someone reported same and that it was covered up - Evidence that the flyover happened and it wasn't reported Therefore, the lack of witnesses to a flyover is not evidence in support of your theory. (Even if your theory demands that any reports of same be concealed) |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic » |









7:27 PM Jul 10