How Much Proof Does CIT need?

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
…
7
8

How Much Proof Does CIT need?
Topic Started: Jul 15 2008, 04:25 PM (2,433 Views)
Aldo Marquis CIT	Aug 12 2008, 01:24 PM Post #176
Posts: 1,238 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Flippy Aug 12 2008, 01:16 PM If only I could post in crayon, maybe then you'd get it. I actually LOL'd.
Posts: 1,238 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


SPreston	Aug 12 2008, 01:50 PM Post #177
Patriotic American Posts: 1,078 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	Bret08 Aug 12 2008, 01:06 PM Flippy Aug 12 2008, 01:02 PM Quote: The pentagon is a much more formidable barrier to cross. Tell that to Lee Evey Oh wait, you don't know who he is. That leads me to wonder why he was lying on the day of the largest mass murder on American soil. Are you saying that that statement is false? Apparently Lee Evey's statement that the nose of the aircraft created the Exit Hole was determined false by The Department of Defense. They changed the reason to a landing gear created the Exit Hole a short while later. Of course there were no heavy steel 757 landing gear nor their heavy steel struts found in the A&E Drive nor anywhere in there among all those rusty pieces either are there? Oooooops! Somebody forgot to stick a 757 nose cone in there. Whose job was that? Heavy steel 757 landing gear and struts weighing tons http://members.tripod.com/~aravm98/reference/757ref18.htm http://members.tripod.com/~aravm98/reference/757ref17.htm



Bret08	Aug 12 2008, 07:31 PM Post #178
repeated trolling offender Posts: 209 Group: BANNED! Member #227 Joined: 01/27/08	So someone guesses what caused the hole on 9/11 and we should conclude that it was a cospiracy based on his guess? Many things were said on 9/11 that were not true. Many theories are put forth by investigators at a crime scene, and rejected once the evidence rules them out. What is the point of acting as if what he said means anything? It is ridiculous. The evidence dictates the final conclusion, not someone's theory. SPreston, did you expect to see an outline of the plane in the pentagon, as we saw in the towers? You really expected to see two engine holes in the side of the pentagon? Go take a physics course. The pentagon is a different kind of building. It will not give you an outline, it will give you a big hole. Concrete does not have the same properties as steel.



Bitterman	Aug 12 2008, 08:54 PM Post #179
Posts: 284 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08	Bret08 Aug 12 2008, 12:31 PM The pentagon and WTC are two different types of buildings genius. The pentagon is a much more formidable barrier to cross. While the engines may not have gone all the way through the pentagon like they did the towers, you can see how the energy of the impact sent the strongest parts of the plane the farthest. It isn't too far fetched to see that some part of the plane, like the landing gear, could have gone through the pentagon and made the whole in the c-ring. Except the frickin' plane was on the north side so it DIDN'T CRASH into the building!!! Fuck sakes. WTF is wrong with you? It's all well and good to GUESS at what the frickin' landing gear COULD have done if you imagine hard enough.....but reality might have to set in when everyone saw it in a place that makes sure it could not have knocked down all those poles and lined up with that damage. Seriously wtf is wrong with you??? What part do you NOT understand here??? Why don't you EVER answer the NoC claim??? You can't quantify it so you just IGNORE it?!?!? You continue to play around with pointless crap, pointless useless information about what caused what damage, when the REAL info has already shown the stuff you're talking about was fucking STAGED. Yet nothing..... Carry on as usual! Nothing to see here!! Keep on debating the crap that COULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED. Yeah, the buildings are TWO different things......but that doesn't mean that concrete is INDESTRUCTIBLE. You see any wing damage on that concrete Bret?? You think those wings magically refused to leave even some windows along that building unscathed!?!?! You go on living in your dream world.....go ahead and continue to post in the skeptics section here. Waste away so people can see how pathetic you are. I guarantee you I will go out of my way to crush any posts you create here related to the Pentagon damage in any way. I will ensure that those posts never get beyond page 1. How old are you btw?? Like, how have you survived at "life" for so long with that kind of mentality??? Seriously! EDITED for swearing a little bit, but still well deserved /EDIT Edited by Bitterman, Aug 12 2008, 08:55 PM.
Posts: 284 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08


Flippy	Aug 12 2008, 09:00 PM Post #180
Posts: 305 Group: Members Member #8 Joined: 01/12/08	Bret08 Aug 12 2008, 07:31 PM So someone guesses what caused the hole on 9/11 and we should conclude that it was a cospiracy based on his guess? Many things were said on 9/11 that were not true. Many theories are put forth by investigators at a crime scene, and rejected once the evidence rules them out. What is the point of acting as if what he said means anything? It is ridiculous. The evidence dictates the final conclusion, not someone's theory. SPreston, did you expect to see an outline of the plane in the pentagon, as we saw in the towers? You really expected to see two engine holes in the side of the pentagon? Go take a physics course. The pentagon is a different kind of building. It will not give you an outline, it will give you a big hole. Concrete does not have the same properties as steel. He guessed? I'm sorry sir, he stated it as fact. You have just debunked yourself. Here, because you seem to lack reading skills. I will post from SPreston on Page 7 post 168. Quote: Presenter: Mr. Lee Evey, Pentagon Renovation Manager Saturday, September 15, 2001 - 11:00 a.m. EDT (Also participating were Rear Adm. Craig R. Quigley, deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Public Affairs and Mr. Terry Mitchell, chief, Audiovisual Division, OASD (PA); numerous other persons un-named ) Second, Mr. Lee Evey, no stranger to many of you, is the head of the Pentagon renovation project and has been for some time. Following Terry, Lee will then get up and go through a description -- take another step further to the description of the damage that you heard some yesterday, as well as how we're going to take it from here in renovating the -- repairing the damage and moving on for the renovation of the remainder of the building. ..... Q: That seems to indicate that it came to rest in ring C, the nose cone. Evey: Let me talk to that, because you've asked a number of questions already about the extent of penetration, et cetera. This is an overhead of the building. The point of penetration was right here, and we blocked that out to show that's the area of collapse. The plane actually penetrated through the E ring, C ring -- excuse me -- E ring, D ring, C ring. This area right here is what we call A-E Drive. And unlike other rings in the building, it's actually a driveway that circles the building inside, between the B and the C ring. The nose of the plane just barely broke through the inside of the C ring, so it was extending into A-E Drive a little bit. So that's the extent of penetration of the aircraft. Q: It broke through which one? Evey: The rings are E, D, C, B and A. Between B and C is a driveway that goes around the Pentagon. It's called A-E Drive. The airplane traveled in a path about like this, and the nose of the aircraft broke through this innermost wall of C ring into A-E Drive. Q: One thing that's confusing -- if it came in the way you described, at an angle, why then are not the wings outside? I mean, the wings would have shorn off. The tail would have shorn off. And yet there's apparently no evidence of the aircraft outside the E ring. Evey: Actually, there's considerable evidence of the aircraft outside the E ring. It's just not very visible. When you get up close -- actually, one of my people happened to be walking on this sidewalk and was right about here as the aircraft approached. It came in. It clipped a couple of light poles on the way in. He happened to hear this terrible noise behind him, looked back, and he actually -- he's a Vietnam veteran -- jumped prone onto the ground so the aircraft would not actually -- he thinks it (would have) hit him; it was that low. http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=1636 See???? Wait, lets try again. Quote: Q: That seems to indicate that it came to rest in ring C, the nose cone. Evey: Let me talk to that, because you've asked a number of questions already about the extent of penetration, et cetera. This is an overhead of the building. The point of penetration was right here, and we blocked that out to show that's the area of collapse. The plane actually penetrated through the E ring, C ring -- excuse me -- E ring, D ring, C ring. This area right here is what we call A-E Drive. And unlike other rings in the building, it's actually a driveway that circles the building inside, between the B and the C ring. The nose of the plane just barely broke through the inside of the C ring, so it was extending into A-E Drive a little bit. So that's the extent of penetration of the aircraft. Q: It broke through which one? Evey: The rings are E, D, C, B and A. Between B and C is a driveway that goes around the Pentagon. It's called A-E Drive. The airplane traveled in a path about like this, and the nose of the aircraft broke through this innermost wall of C ring into A-E Drive. He guessed?
Posts: 305 Group: Members Member #8 Joined: 01/12/08


Bret08	Aug 13 2008, 01:45 PM Post #181
repeated trolling offender Posts: 209 Group: BANNED! Member #227 Joined: 01/27/08	So 4 days after the attacks, they already knew what caused the hole in the c-ring and the investigation was over? He also says that the plane clipped light poles, etc., do you believe that part? You all are playing games and you know it. It doesn't matter what he said. Is what he said the conclusion ultimately made after everything was looked at? He was wrong about the nose cone. No one has ever given out inaccurate information in any investigation in history? Ridiculous.



Bret08	Aug 13 2008, 01:55 PM Post #182
repeated trolling offender Posts: 209 Group: BANNED! Member #227 Joined: 01/27/08	Except the frickin' plane was on the north side so it DIDN'T CRASH into the building!!! Fuck sakes. WTF is wrong with you? Bitterman if it was noc then you must have a good idea how the flyover happened? Why won't you just tell us briefly how the flyover occurred in a way as to fool all of those people. You keep dodging this. Please I am willing to believe you if you would just convince me that the flyover was possible visually and physically. You must have some knowledge of basic physics. How did the flyover look to Lagasse et al. Remember people were positioned 360 degrees around the pentagon.



Flippy	Aug 13 2008, 02:41 PM Post #183
Posts: 305 Group: Members Member #8 Joined: 01/12/08	Bret08 Aug 13 2008, 01:45 PM So 4 days after the attacks, they already knew what caused the hole in the c-ring and the investigation was over? He also says that the plane clipped light poles, etc., do you believe that part? You all are playing games and you know it. It doesn't matter what he said. Is what he said the conclusion ultimately made after everything was looked at? He was wrong about the nose cone. No one has ever given out inaccurate information in any investigation in history? Ridiculous. By your standards everybody is a liar and it doesn't matter.
Posts: 305 Group: Members Member #8 Joined: 01/12/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Aug 13 2008, 03:25 PM Post #184
Posts: 1,238 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Bret08 Aug 13 2008, 01:55 PM Quote: Except the frickin' plane was on the north side so it DIDN'T CRASH into the building!!! Fuck sakes. WTF is wrong with you? Bitterman if it was noc then you must have a good idea how the flyover happened? Why won't you just tell us briefly how the flyover occurred Please by all means, Bret, show us how the plane hit the light poles, generator trailer/fence, and entered the building to cause the internal damage outlined in the ASCE report. Why don't YOU just tell us...
Posts: 1,238 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


SPreston	Aug 13 2008, 03:40 PM Post #185
Patriotic American Posts: 1,078 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	Aldo Marquis CIT Aug 13 2008, 03:25 PM Bret08 Quote: Except the frickin' plane was on the north side so it DIDN'T CRASH into the building!!! Fuck sakes. WTF is wrong with you? Bitterman if it was noc then you must have a good idea how the flyover happened? Why won't you just tell us briefly how the flyover occurred Please by all means, Bret, show us how the plane hit the light poles, generator trailer/fence, and entered the building to cause the internal damage outlined in the ASCE report. Why don't YOU just tell us... Black line original official Flight 77 damage path through Pentagon 1st floor to Punch Out Hole (Exit Hole) with voice & data recorders next to it. Red line projected North of Citgo damage path through Pentagon 1st floor and far from Punch Out Hole (Exit Hole) with voice & data recorders next to it.



Bret08	Aug 13 2008, 04:35 PM Post #186
repeated trolling offender Posts: 209 Group: BANNED! Member #227 Joined: 01/27/08	Flippy Aug 13 2008, 02:41 PM Bret08 Aug 13 2008, 01:45 PM So 4 days after the attacks, they already knew what caused the hole in the c-ring and the investigation was over? He also says that the plane clipped light poles, etc., do you believe that part? You all are playing games and you know it. It doesn't matter what he said. Is what he said the conclusion ultimately made after everything was looked at? He was wrong about the nose cone. No one has ever given out inaccurate information in any investigation in history? Ridiculous. By your standards everybody is a liar and it doesn't matter. What are you talking about? You guys are playing games, because you are trying to hold certain people to the letter of every word they say knowing full well that people make mistakes and are sometimes wrong. You don't hold other people like Lagasse and Brooks to the letter of every word. They have made many mistatements and the only thing that matters is that they said noc. You could care less how wrong they were on several other points. If you want to base your conclusion on what this guy said then that is fine. I know that all things must be considered and looked at before a conclusion can be made. For example: CIT has gone on and on about how Mike Walters said, "the plane banked and then crashed into the pentagon". CIT has tried to say that he meant that it banked from north of the CITGO in some kind of military manuever, and that this proves the plane was noc. IMO he is simply saying that the plane had one wing higher than the other when it crashed into the pentagon. To most lay people a bank is when a plane has one wing up and one wing down. We saw the hijackers bank before hitting the north tower and the south tower. They did this to try and maximize their field of damage. Is it not reasonable to expect the hijacker at the pentagon to do the same thing? Many witnesses have described the left wing down and the right wing up when the plane hit the pentagon. This is a game played by CIT. They give their own interpretation to what a witness says and then pass it off as fact. The same thing is done with the explosions at TWC. Many lay people describe a loud noise as an explosion. The truthers try to say many people said there were explosions. So, what does that mean? The reporters kept describing the collapse of tower 2 as a 'secondary explosion'. It was simply the collapse of the tower. The tower simply gave way. There are close up video showing no explosion cause either tower to collapse. The supports just gave way to the thousands of tons above the impact area.



Flippy	Aug 13 2008, 04:50 PM Post #187
Posts: 305 Group: Members Member #8 Joined: 01/12/08	I'm playing games but you think you can make statements like Quote: They did this to try and maximize their field of damage. Because you know why they banked. As well, because I should hold what you say as truth. "They did this to try and maximize their field of damage." But not a Government Employee in Lee Evey. Your an idiot.
Posts: 305 Group: Members Member #8 Joined: 01/12/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Aug 13 2008, 05:25 PM Post #188
Posts: 1,238 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Now you see why I ignore him. He can't be older than 17.
Posts: 1,238 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Bret08	Aug 13 2008, 05:36 PM Post #189
repeated trolling offender Posts: 209 Group: BANNED! Member #227 Joined: 01/27/08	Flippy Aug 13 2008, 04:50 PM I'm playing games but you think you can make statements like Quote: They did this to try and maximize their field of damage. Because you know why they banked. As well, because I should hold what you say as truth. "They did this to try and maximize their field of damage." But not a Government Employee in Lee Evey. Your an idiot. Why do you think they banked before hitting the towers and the pentagon? I did say IMO. Aldo you've been iginoring the evidence since day one. What is your point? Why have you put forth a flyover theory that none of you can describe? If it isn't possible, it didn't happen.



Aldo Marquis CIT	Aug 13 2008, 05:46 PM Post #190
Posts: 1,238 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Bret08 Aug 13 2008, 05:36 PM Aldo you've been iginoring the evidence since day one. What is your point? Why have you put forth a flyover theory that none of you can describe? If it isn't possible, it didn't happen. Ok Bret. Vague declarations from a 17 yr old who doesn't want to believe this means shit. Keep moving those goal posts, keep spinning and giving us "maybe" and "if" and "IMO". You are a joke. It is YOU I ignore. Get it straight.
Posts: 1,238 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


C.H.	Aug 13 2008, 05:57 PM Post #191
Posts: 38 Group: Members Member #634 Joined: 06/04/08	Bret08 IMO he is simply saying that the plane had one wing higher than the other when it crashed into the pentagon. Or... he saw the plane bank. Quote: To most lay people a bank is when a plane has one wing up and one wing down. Uh... to most people a bank is a bank. Why do make ridiculous assertions with absolutely no evidence? Quote: We saw the hijackers bank before hitting the north tower and the south tower. They did this to try and maximize their field of damage. A tilt is not a bank. Do you have any evidence that a 'tilt' would 'maximize their damage field' and how do you know the hijacker's intentions? Edited by C.H., Aug 13 2008, 05:59 PM.
Posts: 38 Group: Members Member #634 Joined: 06/04/08


Flippy	Aug 13 2008, 06:14 PM Post #192
Posts: 305 Group: Members Member #8 Joined: 01/12/08	Quote: A tilt is not a bank. Do you have any evidence that a 'tilt' would 'maximize their damage field' and how do you know the hijacker's intentions? Because he is: THE GREAT BRET08 from Texas and he knows what's up. Bret08, How was Governor Bush?
Posts: 305 Group: Members Member #8 Joined: 01/12/08


Bret08	Aug 14 2008, 01:42 PM Post #193
repeated trolling offender Posts: 209 Group: BANNED! Member #227 Joined: 01/27/08	You guys are still planying games. Most people would not say the plane 'tilted'. They would say it banked. If you wanted to do as much damage as possible wouldn't you bank the plane right before impact, so that you could affect as many floors as possible? Of course I am not in the hijackers minds, but I bet that opinion will trump anyone you could come up with as to why at all 3 impacts the hijackers banked the plane before hitting the target. You guys still will not give your onpinion of how the flyover was pulled off. I know you weren't there and cant say exactly how it happened, but you do have an idea of how it happened? How could they fool everyone with the flyover? It is simple. If you believe it is possible you have to be able to picture it in your mind. What does it look like in your mind?



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


« Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
…
7
8