Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Are there any flyover witnesses?
Topic Started: Jan 16 2008, 02:13 AM (8,691 Views)
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Can please point out the previous study or documentary that specifically spoke with witnesses who were there and asked them which side of the gas station the plane was on?

I'm not aware of any other such study that specifically asked people which side of the gas station they saw the plane on.


Ok.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Were we the first?

I don't know. (See previous response)


Got it.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Have witnesses ever been asked this question or asked to be specific about this detail before?

I have no way of knowing this. (See first response)


Ok.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Do you believe 6 people all got the same detail wrong?

Though that is a possibility, I am not accusing them of being wrong.


Please explain how that could be a possibility. If you are not accusing them of being wrong, then what are you accusing them of or how do you explain the corroboration of their accounts?

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Do you think this is a detail that they could misremember?

Though that is a possibility, I am not accusing them of "misremembering".


Please explain how that could be a possibility. If you are not accusing them of "misremembering", then what are you accusing them of or how do you explain the corroboration of their accounts?

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Do Robert Turcios, Chad Brooks and Bill Lagasse frequent that area of the gas station often? How about before the event? How about after?


I would assume that they did, and do frequent the area, but have not spoken with them directly on the subject.


Ok you WOULD assume that, because that assumption is a logical one correct?

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Do you think that, days, months perhaps even years after the event, that any of those 3 replayed that memory in their mind as they pass or arrive at the gas station?


I would be surprised if they did not, but again, I have not spoken with any of them directly on the subject.


Ok. So you think they would because that is a logical conclusion correct?

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Or did they all forget about it until the day we interviewed them at which point they all misremembered the wrong side?


In my opinion, that seems unlikely.


Ok then. So what seems likely or more likely? If it seems unlikely, how did they all confirm the same side?

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
How many witnesses have you interviewed on camera that specifically told you which side of the gas station the plane approached on?


Zero.


Ok. Don't you think that would be a good place to start? Since we've already started there, is it safe to say that we have effectively confirmed which side of the gas station the plane flew on?

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Can you show me the official gov't documentation that shows how the plane flew on the south side of the Citgo and knocked down the 5 light poles? Please be sure to note the part where they carefully documented Lloyd England's interaction with the light pole.


See photo below for flight path, including the downed poles. (I don't have a direct link to the specific area of the government report on the subject at my immediate disposal, but this photo does show the OT flight path)
Posted Image


That is not an offficial gov't image. I believe that image was created by Ron Harvey, a UK "researcher" and pro impact proponent. By "official gov't"

It is not a gov't image until to provide a source, Nicepants.


Quote:
 
I do not know whether Lloyd's light pole interaction is included in any official government reports.


It is not. Why do you think that is? Don't you think the gov't "scientists and engineers" would actually want to document that in order that they find out exactly how the plane hit the building and to document the missing seconds of the FDR? Or does it make sense that they would not document any of that in favor of towing Lloyd's car returning it to him the next day and leaving poles out for 3 weeks to onlyhave them picked up by VDOT trucks and recycled later.


Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Can you also display the witnesses who saw the pole spear it's way into Lloyd's cab or even pieces of the pole hitting Lloyd's windshield while he spun out sideways?


The only witness that I'm aware of to those events would be Lloyd himself.





A few questions for you:

Quote:
 
- Are there any eyewitnesses accounts which offer an alternate explanation of the damage to Lloyd's cab and the source of the light pole?



No, only Lloyd's unbelievable account.

Quote:
 
- What physical evidence did you use to "test" the claims of the n.o.c. eyewitnesses to ensure their validity?


I am not sure what you mean by physical evidence. Do you mean the "counter-inuitive" damage to the building? Yes, we used that. The irreconcilable damage to the trailer? Yes, we used that. Lloyd's cab and winshield, yes we used that.

What physical evidence did you use to determine that they weren't correct? Photos of light poles and a cab? Did you get the official SCIENTIFIC reports that documented EXACTLY what happened to those poles which would help support and determine EXACTLY how those were struck? Oh that's right, you don't know of any.

Quote:
 
- What evidence would falsify the claims of the 6 n.o.c. witnesses? (Think hypothetically)


If all 6 noc witnesses did not exist. Is that hypothetical enough?

"n.o.c." = North of Citgo
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Do you believe 6 people all got the same detail wrong?

Though that is a possibility, I am not accusing them of being wrong.


Please explain how that could be a possibility. If you are not accusing them of being wrong, then what are you accusing them of or how do you explain the corroboration of their accounts?


I don't believe that it's impossible for eyewitnesses to be wrong. I'm not accusing them of being wrong, just pointing out that their statements are not in agreement with all of the other eyewitnesses and physical evidence.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Do you think this is a detail that they could misremember?

Though that is a possibility, I am not accusing them of "misremembering".


Please explain how that could be a possibility. If you are not accusing them of "misremembering", then what are you accusing them of or how do you explain the corroboration of their accounts?


I don't believe that it is impossible for an eyewitness to "mis-remember". Corroboration does not make them right.


Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Do Robert Turcios, Chad Brooks and Bill Lagasse frequent that area of the gas station often? How about before the event? How about after?


I would assume that they did, and do frequent the area, but have not spoken with them directly on the subject.


Ok you WOULD assume that, because that assumption is a logical one correct?


I would assume that because it seems logical and I have been presented with no evidence to the contrary.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Or did they all forget about it until the day we interviewed them at which point they all misremembered the wrong side?


In my opinion, that seems unlikely.


Ok then. So what seems likely or more likely? If it seems unlikely, how did they all confirm the same side?


It seems unlikely that they would "forget about it until the day you interviewed them".

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Ok. Don't you think that would be a good place to start? Since we've already started there, is it safe to say that we have effectively confirmed which side of the gas station the plane flew on?


No. I think it's safe to say you have confirmed that these 6 people agree, but that does not prove that they are correct, it only proves that they agree.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
It is not a gov't image until to provide a source, Nicepants.

As I stated before, I do not have a direct link to said image at my immediate disposal.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
It is not. Why do you think that is? Don't you think the gov't "scientists and engineers" would actually want to document that in order that they find out exactly how the plane hit the building and to document the missing seconds of the FDR? Or does it make sense that they would not document any of that in favor of towing Lloyd's car returning it to him the next day and leaving poles out for 3 weeks to onlyhave them picked up by VDOT trucks and recycled later.


That would be a great question for the researchers you mention. I would be curious to know what additional information could have been gleaned by including Lloyd's story into their report.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Quote:
 
- Are there any eyewitnesses accounts which offer an alternate explanation of the damage to Lloyd's cab and the source of the light pole?



No, only Lloyd's unbelievable account.

Seeming "unbelievable" to you is not evidence that it is untrue.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Quote:
 
- What physical evidence did you use to "test" the claims of the n.o.c. eyewitnesses to ensure their validity?


I am not sure what you mean by physical evidence.


I mean: What sources of evidence (other than eyewitness accounts) can your eyewitness accounts be compared to in order to determine their validity? Examples: Photos, Videos, etc.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Do you mean the "counter-inuitive" damage to the building? Yes, we used that.

The damage to the building does not prove that your witnesses are correct.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
The irreconcilable damage to the trailer? Yes, we used that.

The damage to the trailer does not prove that the noc witnesses are correct.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Lloyd's cab and winshield, yes we used that.

Lloyd's cab/windshield do not prove that the noc witnesses are correct. In fact, it does not agree with their statements.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
What physical evidence did you use to determine that they weren't correct? Photos of light poles and a cab? Did you get the official SCIENTIFIC reports that documented EXACTLY what happened to those poles which would help support and determine EXACTLY how those were struck? Oh that's right, you don't know of any.


I never said "they aren't correct". My point is that the accounts given by these 6 people seem to disagree with some of the other accounts and physical evidence. For this reason, I don't believe it's prudent to assume in all cases that the noc witnesses are always correct and that anything disagreeing with them is automatically wrong/faked.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Quote:
 
- What evidence would falsify the claims of the 6 n.o.c. witnesses? (Think hypothetically)


If all 6 noc witnesses did not exist. Is that hypothetical enough?


Aha! Now we have it! Thank you for at least answering truthfully, it explains a lot. Now I know that there is NO piece of evidence, NO amount of eyewitness testimony at all which would cause you to believe that your 6 witnesses were wrong. This means that your claim is unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific. It also means that even if someone had VIDEO TAPE of the plane flying South of Citgo, you would claim that it was doctored/fake/etc, because accepting that evidence would mean that your 6 noc witnesses were wrong.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Have you been to the area before Nicepants? If not, you should go. Perhaps you can provide an identity and we can put you in touch with the officers.


I have never been. At some point I'm sure I will, but I have no desire nor need to speak directly with the officers in your video. I trust that you have accurately portrayed their statements in your video.


Yes that will help you in understanding how this could be pulled off.

So you trust that we have accurately portrayed their statements, do you trust their statements. If not, explain how they could be wrong.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
nicepants
 

If there was a confirmed witness account of the plane hitting the pentagon, would that be considered a direct contradiction to the n.o.c. claims? (See section on mutual exclusivity)

No. Perhaps you don't understand what it means to contradict. It would only be contradicted when you can produce a witness who saw it on the south side or will go on camera and say they saw it on the south side of the Citgo who was actually in a position to tell which side of the station it was on.


I must have incorrectly assumed that based on the n.o.c. claims, you concluded that the plane couldn't have hit the Pentagon. Therefore, if someone claims to have seen a plane hit the pentagon, it would be contradictory to:
- The claim that the plane was n.o.c. OR
- The claim that the plane flying n.o.c. would not allow for the observed impact.



If someone claims to have seen a plane hit the pentagon, it would be unconfirmed testimony of someone claiming to have seen an impact. If they are on Rt 27, they fall into the category of being fooled or lying and do not contradict the north side. If they are on the outside perimeter looking toward the Pentagon, they have to explain why they didn't see the plane/jet that veered away at the time of the explosion and do not contradict the north side.



Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
You should update that to:

30 unconfirmed and dubious witness accounts directly say they saw the plane hit the pentagon


What makes them "dubious"?


Improbabilities in their accounts, discrepencies, lies, inconsistencies, contradictions, lack of corroboration. Ya know, things like that.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Why do you insist on lying when it has been clearly demonstrated that there is not 104 witnesses that "saw" the plane hit the pentagon.

Will you admit you are lying or just spamming a list without actually analyzing the accounts using POV's and the acceptance that reporters words do not constitute seeing an impact?


On the pages I linked to, there are 104 people who claim that they saw the jet fly into the Pentagon. That is not a false claim, that's what they said.


Ok, let's try this differently. List them. Show me how YOU determined that "they said" they saw and could actually physically see the impact.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Oooooh. So which is it? 104 or 25? You don't seem sure. It seems like you are trying to throw anything out there and hope it sticks.


104 people say they saw the plane hit the pentagon
According to YOUR research, you have admitted that there are 25. Either way it's more than the 6 who report n.o.c.


No, what we have conceded is that they are around 25 that could have actually been in a position to see an impact. It does not mean the saw an impact and it does not mean that there are not other problems in their account.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Just curious how many out of that 25 saw it on the south side of the Citgo? 0.

6 saw it on the north side
0 saw it on the south side


Which means that the majority of impact witnesses do not know which side of Citgo the plane was on.


Nope. It means that 6 witnesses have confirmed the north side and 0 will or can refute it. It means you will not and have not produced any witnesses filmed on location, with proof they were there, and a logical representation of their account that would allow them to see the plane on the south side of the Citgo.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
The 94 don't have to directly corroborate them, they don't contradict them.

We have weighed the all the evidence completely.

Tell me, were all "104" imaginary witnesses you have in a position to tell which side of the gas station the plane was on? NOPE.

Guess who was? Sgt Brooks, Sgt. Lagasse, Robert Turcios, Levi Stephens, Sean Boger.

Have you bothered to determine who was in a position?


Quote:
 
Why is it always about the Citgo station? If someone saw the plane fly into the Pentagon, are you saying that the n.o.c. witnesses prove them wrong?


It is about the Citgo because it proves the deception. It proves the conspiracy. It is the simple point of reference that tells us what exactly happened on Rt 27 South. It means"impact" witnesses were fooled. deduced or lying, because they do not or will not directly refute the north side flight path.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 

Besides, since the plane was on the north side of the Citgo is it more likely that it pulled up or hit the first floor as outlined by the surveillance video and the ASCE report?


Since only 1 witness reported a pull-up, and this was not confirmed by ANY other witnesses, the pull-up seems unlikely.


ok, let's try this again. Since 6 people confirmed the north side approach is it likely that the plane pulled up or is it likely that it hit the first floor? Remember, i didn't ask you about the "1 person" , I asked you about the north side which is confirmed by 6 people who were there.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
nicepants
 
Ok. Let's go with your investigation scenario. Just because 3 witnesses claim that someone committed a crime doesn't mean that the physical evidence against those statements can be ignored or "carry less weight".


What physical evidence?


If we're talking about the analogy, physical evidence that contradicts what is reported by the 3 witnesses. (DNA, fingerprints, etc)


Did the DNA or fingerprints see the plane on the south side? Did the rescue/recovery people who collected the DNA see the plane on the south side?

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Show me the documentation for the light poles and the flight path through them. Show me where the official gov't "scientists and engineers" documented how the plane hit the light poles approaching from the south side. Show me the official diagram that documents the original positions of the pole.


See image & comment(s) from previous post.


See where I tell you it is not a gov't image.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Explain how your "physical evidence" that is the generator trailer does not allow the impact of the right engine since it doesn't match with the FDR trends contained in the black box or the even the left wing tilt required to hit the "vent structure".


If the plane flew over the pentagon, it couldn't have hit the generator. But the generator was hit.


First of all, what proof do you have it was "hit"? ONCE AGAIN, the FDR and the alleged left wing tilt for the vent structure is IRRECONCILABLE with the damage to the trailer AND the fence.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Is it more likely or less likely that column 14AA would be left hanging in the middle of the hole if a 757 hit that wall?


I don't know. I have no way of testing the probability of same. Do you?


I don't, but I asked you a simply questions and asked you pose an answer one way or the other.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Is it more likely or less likely that column 15-17 would be blown up and out if a 757 hit it?

I don't know. I have no way of testing the probability of same. Do you?


I don't, but I asked you a simply questions and asked you pose an answer one way or the other.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Is it more likely or less likely that the foundation would remained unscratched/undamaged if a 757 skidded in on it's belly into the first floor?

I don't know. I have no way of testing the probability of same. Do you?



I don't, but I asked you a simply questions and asked you pose an answer one way or the other.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
1. Robert Turcios' eyewitness account supports the flyover.


He is the only one.


No he is not. See below.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
2. The 6 independent witness accounts who place it on the north side of the Citgo support the flyover.

Did any of them report a flyover? Or did they simply report the plane n.o.c.? There is a difference


No they report the plane NOC, which directly supports the flyover.


Quote:
 
nicepants
 
3. The mysterious "second" plane/jet accounts that could not be the C-130 supports the flyover.

It doesn't contradict the claims of a plane impact,.


Yes it does. Because it provides a plausible explanation for the flyover plane.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
4. The fabricated NTSB/RADES flight path of 77 prove the plane did not hit the Pentagon, which supports the flyover.


Link, please, to the data you're referring to.


See the C-130 thread and our new river boat witness.

Quote:
 
I'll ask my question again, rephrased.

Of your "confirmed witnesses", how many specifically stated that they saw the plane pull up and/or fly over the Pentagon?


You saw the video. Have we indicated anything different?

Sgt Brooks told us our movie was an eye opener and that "anything is possible" whenit comes to him being fooled? Does this sound like someone who is sure of an impact or unsure?

Just so I have it straight, how many witnesses confirm that they saw the plane fly on the south side of the Citgo? How many contradict the north side? How many have you interviewed on camera that confirm this?

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Absence of evidence is not evidence my friend.


Exactly. The lack of reports of a flyover is not evidence of a cover-up.


Please. The lack of south side flight path witnesses and now proven fraudelant flight path is evidence of a cover-up.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
[
Craig Ranke CIT
 
The north side witnesses were also deceived.

They were decieved because they saw the plane on the north side!


Are you saying that the n.o.c. witnesses were deceived into believing the plane was on the north side?


No, of course I'm not. You know what I am saying. They were fooled into believing the plane hit the building. Because the plane was on the north side of the Citgo means it could not hit the building, so they were obviously fooled.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Would they be more accurate about the plane being on the north side or about it impacting????

If it were me, it would be easier for me to say "yes the plane hit the pentagon" then it would be to describe the flight path with any detail.


Wow. Now that is a doozy. Of course, if it were "you".

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
And again, there are no witnesses who saw an impact only those who claim they did


Just as the n.o.c. witnesses "claim" they saw the plane n.o.c., yet you admittedly refuse to hold them to the same level of scrutiny.


No. The North side witnesses SAW the plane on the north side and they claim they saw it impact.

So you are calling it a "claim", correct? So if it is just a claim, then you are implying they are incorrect or possibly incorrect. Please explain how all 6 are not correct.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
and there are NONE who refute the north side by actually detailing a south side flight path. You can't refute the north side, by exclaiming you think they "saw" an impact because you read it somewhere. Do you understand?


I understand what you are saying, what I don't understand is why you believe the n.o.c. claims to be proven and airtight, therefore anything that disagrees with them must be wrong. Just because people agree on something doesn't make them right.




Oh, ok so they are not right??? Is that what you are saying? If so, EXPLAIN how they are all incorrect about what they saw.

It is proven and airtight because it has been CONFIRMED and NOT REFUTED, do you understand? Your personal incredulity, omitting/ingoring of accompanying evidence and vague tip-toeing around calling them incorrect without explaining how they are all incorrect is not a form of evidence. Your poor and unresearched interpretation of a list of possible witness excerpts does not constitute proof against the CONFIRMATION and CORROBORATION of the north side approach.


Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Well none of the "accounts of the plane hitting the Pentagon" contradict the north side flight path. So yes, they are mutually exclusive and one negates the other


You've just contradicted yourself again.
If they don't contradict, then they are not mutually exclusive.
If they are mutually exclusive, then they MUST contradict each other.



No I haven't. You are playing word games and ignoring the fundamental basics of what has been conveyed. Did you miss the part where I stated why one would be NEGATED? How can your list even be submitted when you have not even analyzed the accounts. YOU haven't even personally confirmed an account. You are basing this on a sensationalized excerpt or blurb of a "witness" account without even confirming or clarifying details or positions. Apples and rocks.

Did you ever come up with an explanation how they are all "incorrect" at the same time, about the same detail?



Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Can you guess which one that is? 10 people on Rt 27 can tell you 10 different ways the plane hit the building, but that is irrelevant if they are oblivious to the noc path or don't contradict it.

So your stance is that unless someone knows which side of the citgo station the plane was on, the rest of their account is invalid?


Nicepants, "the rest of their account" is a published excerpt without any direct confirmation or clarification.

You are cheating and this is getting pretty sickening. You keep acting as if your "impact" list is VALID. IT IS NOT.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND?????????????

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
nicepants
 
And how do you know that your n.o.c. witnesses were not all "either deceived or lying"?


Because they are corroborated about the same specific detail 6 times over.

- That doesn't make them right


Oh please do tell, what does that make them then? Are they right yes or no? If YOU say they are not, please explain how they all got the same detail wrong at the same time.


Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Because they showed up for the interview.

- That doesn't make them right


Oh please do tell, what does that make them then? Are they right yes or no? If YOU say they are not, please explain how they all got the same detail wrong at the same time.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Because they can prove they were there and are not sitting in a cushy office while they "tell us" they were "there".

- That doesn't make them right


Oh please do tell, what does that make them then? Are they right yes or no? If YOU say they are not, please explain how they all got the same detail wrong at the same time.


Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Because not one single witness will directly or can directly contradict all 6 witnesses.

- What specific statements made by an eyewitness could contradict one or more of the n.o.c. witnesses?



7 eyewitnesses in a position to see and confirm the south/north side flight path filmed on location could potentially contradict the noc witnesses.


Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Because the FDR and physical evidence do not support the impact of a 757.

- The physical evidence doesn't support a flyover. (Where was the FDR found?)


The FDR was found at the alleged "impact" site AND at the C-ring. In one account by Brian Moravitz and another firefighter and in another account by Allen Kylsheimer. So which is it?

Oh ok. So when they found the bloody glove at OJ's it automatically means he killed those people right? The same people he was NOT convicted of killing. The same glove they showed did not fit. Just like the FDR that does not show the approach we have documented.

Actually, the "counter-intuitive" evidence does not support an impact of a 757, so it would logically support the flyover/away.



Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Because the true flight path of this plane does not support the impact of a 757.

- It does not support the flyover theory.


Oh really? So the data you claim came from black box found inside the pentagon that DOESN'T match the C-130 pilot's account, Mineta/Belger's DRA Rosslyn approach, Scoggin's SE of white house, and our river boat witness DOESN'T support a flyover?????????? So the black box data DOESN'T reflect what the plane actually did and you're saying it supports an impact...all because they "found" the black box in the pentagon? Is that what you're saying?


Quote:
 
Please answer the questions I asked you:

- Are there any eyewitnesses accounts which offer an alternate explanation of the damage to Lloyd's cab and the source of the light pole?
- What physical evidence did you use to "test" the claims of the n.o.c. eyewitnesses to ensure their validity?
- What evidence would falsify the claims of the 6 n.o.c. witnesses? (Think hypothetically)

"n.o.c." = North of Citgo


I did.




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Do you believe 6 people all got the same detail wrong?

Though that is a possibility, I am not accusing them of being wrong.


Please explain how that could be a possibility. If you are not accusing them of being wrong, then what are you accusing them of or how do you explain the corroboration of their accounts?


I don't believe that it's impossible for eyewitnesses to be wrong. I'm not accusing them of being wrong, just pointing out that their statements are not in agreement with all of the other eyewitnesses and physical evidence.



Ok and? So are they right or are they wrong? They were there and telling you where the plane was at. You refuse to accept it and provide no witnesses to counter it. Where does that leave us?

Is your interpretation of the evidence more valid than their eyewitness testimony? You have nothing officially documenting the light pole/plane/cab interaction. Yet you believe it happened the way YOU, GRAVY, JREF etc all say it did. Why? Because of personal incredulity? The only govt report you have on the damage has remained inconsistent with other reports documenting the same damage. This report does NOT document the light pole damage, only the physical damage inside the building from the trailer forward.



Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Do you think this is a detail that they could misremember?

Though that is a possibility, I am not accusing them of "misremembering".


Please explain how that could be a possibility. If you are not accusing them of "misremembering", then what are you accusing them of or how do you explain the corroboration of their accounts?


I don't believe that it is impossible for an eyewitness to "mis-remember". Corroboration does not make them right.



Boy, you sure like to remain vague huh? So what makes them right? What will it take for you to admit you believe them?

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Do Robert Turcios, Chad Brooks and Bill Lagasse frequent that area of the gas station often? How about before the event? How about after?


I would assume that they did, and do frequent the area, but have not spoken with them directly on the subject.


Ok you WOULD assume that, because that assumption is a logical one correct?


I would assume that because it seems logical and I have been presented with no evidence to the contrary.



Ok so if it is logical why is it illogical that they would get their memory of the plane's position in relation to which side of the Citgo wrong?

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Or did they all forget about it until the day we interviewed them at which point they all misremembered the wrong side?


In my opinion, that seems unlikely.


Ok then. So what seems likely or more likely? If it seems unlikely, how did they all confirm the same side?


It seems unlikely that they would "forget about it until the day you interviewed them".


Oh man you are a coy one. So what seems more likely?

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Ok. Don't you think that would be a good place to start? Since we've already started there, is it safe to say that we have effectively confirmed which side of the gas station the plane flew on?


No. I think it's safe to say you have confirmed that these 6 people agree, but that does not prove that they are correct, it only proves that they agree.


What proves they are correct when the whole of Jref accepts it?

So are they correct, yes or no? If not, explain how they all got the north side wrong.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
It is not a gov't image until to provide a source, Nicepants.

As I stated before, I do not have a direct link to said image at my immediate disposal.


Then you do not have a gov't image ducmenting the flight path through the light poles.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
It is not. Why do you think that is? Don't you think the gov't "scientists and engineers" would actually want to document that in order that they find out exactly how the plane hit the building and to document the missing seconds of the FDR? Or does it make sense that they would not document any of that in favor of towing Lloyd's car returning it to him the next day and leaving poles out for 3 weeks to onlyhave them picked up by VDOT trucks and recycled later.


That would be a great question for the researchers you mention. I would be curious to know what additional information could have been gleaned by including Lloyd's story into their report.


So do you have a reason why? If you don't have anything "scientific" put out by gov't engineers/scientists that documents the plane/light poles/cab interaction how do you know what happened to them, how they were struck, which side of the gas station they documented the plane one before it hit the poles.

So let me get this straight, you have absolutely no scientific evidence or reports regarding the light poles or the cab. You have no confirmed reports of the plane actually striking light poles. CONFIRMED. You have the FDR missing the final seconds. You have not one witness who will go on camera and claim the plane was on the south side. You have 25-30 witness accounts (that you originally claim was 104) you have not personally analyzed or confirmed.

But you can't trust the word of 6 people who were there and relay a simple left right detail? Is that about right?

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Quote:
 
- Are there any eyewitnesses accounts which offer an alternate explanation of the damage to Lloyd's cab and the source of the light pole?



No, only Lloyd's unbelievable account.

Seeming "unbelievable" to you is not evidence that it is untrue.


haha. Ok. Is it believeable to you? explain. Provide corroborating witnesses. Provide corroborating reports and evidence.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Quote:
 
- What physical evidence did you use to "test" the claims of the n.o.c. eyewitnesses to ensure their validity?


I am not sure what you mean by physical evidence.


I mean: What sources of evidence (other than eyewitness accounts) can your eyewitness accounts be compared to in order to determine their validity? Examples: Photos, Videos, etc.


hmmmm, well photos are not going to shed much light. The Videos were released by the perps. The debris was picked up that day. There are no forms of physical evidence that CAN "validate" their accounts. That is why we have to use corroboration.

Please. I absolutely dare you to mention that "physical evidence" supports an impact again. Please mention it again.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Do you mean the "counter-inuitive" damage to the building? Yes, we used that.

The damage to the building does not prove that your witnesses are correct.


It validates their account though. It supports their accounts.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
The irreconcilable damage to the trailer? Yes, we used that.

The damage to the trailer does not prove that the noc witnesses are correct.


yes it does. Because it is irreconcilable with their flight path and it is irreconcilable with the FDR and the left wing tilt required for the vent structure. Nothing hit the trailer so that supports the flyover.

Let's try this another way. What piece of evidence supports the impact of the right engine into the trailer???

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Lloyd's cab and winshield, yes we used that.

Lloyd's cab/windshield do not prove that the noc witnesses are correct. In fact, it does not agree with their statements.


It doesn't? Why? Because you saw a photo of cab and a light pole on the ground? His account is rife with problems, there are no supporting doduments/reports/studies on it, there are no corroborating witnesses ONLY contradicting ones. All you have is a photo and your personal incredulity.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
What physical evidence did you use to determine that they weren't correct? Photos of light poles and a cab? Did you get the official SCIENTIFIC reports that documented EXACTLY what happened to those poles which would help support and determine EXACTLY how those were struck? Oh that's right, you don't know of any.


I never said "they aren't correct". My point is that the accounts given by these 6 people seem to disagree with some of the other accounts and physical evidence. For this reason, I don't believe it's prudent to assume in all cases that the noc witnesses are always correct and that anything disagreeing with them is automatically wrong/faked.


Then what are they if you never said, "they aren't correct"??? You have NOTHING but your belief in photos of a cab and a light pole. I have the weight of people who were THERE who adamantly and without knowing the implications stated the plane was nowhere near the cab or the poles final resting spot.

Do you believe it is prudent to believe physical damage (that you have to document and guess on yourself) or is it more prudent to listen to people who were there about a simple detail such as which side of the gas station the plane was on?



Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Quote:
 
- What evidence would falsify the claims of the 6 n.o.c. witnesses? (Think hypothetically)


If all 6 noc witnesses did not exist. Is that hypothetical enough?


Aha! Now we have it! Thank you for at least answering truthfully, it explains a lot. Now I know that there is NO piece of evidence, NO amount of eyewitness testimony at all which would cause you to believe that your 6 witnesses were wrong. This means that your claim is unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific.


Easy Toto. hehe. A little Popper's action for me?

You guys are so funny with your silly little word games.

Nicepants, you need to seriously need to take a step back from the painting and look at what you just walked into.

The north side flight path is a NEW detail that has been unearthed and was never known before. There is nothing and has been nothing that could change the evidence. The reality is and always has been that "there is NO piece of evidence, NO amount of eyewitness testimony at all" which would cause YOU or any of your cohorts to believe 911 was inside job.

You have proven that you are a goal post mover.

Unscientific?

Nicepants, you posted a witness list you've never analyzed. You base the south side flight path through the light poles on a photograph of a pole and a cab, without even having ANY documentation from gov't scientists or engineers that document the light pole/flight path/cab interaction.

Quote:
 
It also means that even if someone had VIDEO TAPE of the plane flying South of Citgo, you would claim that it was doctored/fake/etc, because accepting that evidence would mean that your 6 noc witnesses were wrong.


No it means that it would never be accepted because we have proven that they manipulate video. We proved when we went there and actually spoke with a participant, not sit there and lap up everything these scumbags give you.

Nicepants, you can't even concede the problems in the story. You are in severe denial and have a superiority complex. Let it go.

What does my belief in a detail that I personally confirmed with witnesses 6 times over have to do with weight of the evidence itself? Remember, I had a belief or a hypothesis that the plane did not hit the building. I went there to find evidence that would EITHER confirm or falsify this claim. I found evidence that CONFIRMS it, overwhelmingly.

Your little word games will not work, they only shine light on your own hypocrisy, inconsistencies and goal post moving.

You guys love and live to cheat.

Tell me,

What evidence or pieces of evidence CONVINCES you that the plane was on the south side or convinces you it hit?

What evidence or pieces of evidence would CONVINCE you that the plane was NOT on the south side or that it didn't hit?



Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Jan 18 2008, 12:04 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
So you trust that we have accurately portrayed their statements, do you trust their statements. If not, explain how they could be wrong.


I trust their statements no more than I trust the statements of other eyewitnesses who reported different things.

How could they be wrong? As I'm sure you are well-aware, it is possible for witnesses to be wrong, for any number of reasons.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
If someone claims to have seen a plane hit the pentagon, it would be unconfirmed testimony of someone claiming to have seen an impact.


How could such testimony be "confirmed"?

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
If they are on Rt 27, they fall into the category of being fooled or lying and do not contradict the north side. If they are on the outside perimeter looking toward the Pentagon, they have to explain why they didn't see the plane/jet that veered away at the time of the explosion


If they eyewitnesses did not report a plane/jet veering away, why do you assume this to be the case?

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Ok, let's try this differently. List them. Show me how YOU determined that "they said" they saw and could actually physically see the impact.


What "they said" is clearly spelled out on the pages I previously linked to. I made no claims as to whether any of them could physically see the impact or not.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
No, what we have conceded is that they are around 25 that could have actually been in a position to see an impact. It does not mean the saw an impact and it does not mean that there are not other problems in their account.


So which of these 25 accounts do you take issue with?

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Nope. It means that 6 witnesses have confirmed the north side and 0 will or can refute it.

Ok. How many witnesses can refute Lloyd England's account? See? it works both ways. Just because there isn't a direct contradiction by another eyewitness doesn't make the opposite true.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
It means you will not and have not produced any witnesses filmed on location, with proof they were there, and a logical representation of their account that would allow them to see the plane on the south side of the Citgo.


I have no reason to film interviews on location. Besides, we've already established that, even if I produced video of an eyewitness who claims to have seen the plane south of citgo, you would not accept the claim, because it would invalidate the claims of your witnesses.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
It is about the Citgo because it proves the deception. It proves the conspiracy. It is the simple point of reference that tells us what exactly happened on Rt 27 South. It means"impact" witnesses were fooled. deduced or lying, because they do not or will not directly refute the north side flight path.


How could anyone refute this,when you claim:

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Tell me, were all "104" imaginary witnesses you have in a position to tell which side of the gas station the plane was on? NOPE. Guess who was? Sgt Brooks, Sgt. Lagasse, Robert Turcios, Levi Stephens, Sean Boger.


If no one else was in a position to see which side of the gas station it was on, there's no way that anyone else could refute these claims directly.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
ok, let's try this again. Since 6 people confirmed the north side approach is it likely that the plane pulled up or is it likely that it hit the first floor? Remember, i didn't ask you about the "1 person" , I asked you about the north side which is confirmed by 6 people who were there.


Reporting the plane north of Citgo is not reporting that the plane pulled up and flew over.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Did the DNA or fingerprints see the plane on the south side? Did the rescue/recovery people who collected the DNA see the plane on the south side?


If the plane didn't hit the pentagon, then remains/dna/plane parts could not have been recovered.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
First of all, what proof do you have it was "hit"? ONCE AGAIN, the FDR and the alleged left wing tilt for the vent structure is IRRECONCILABLE with the damage to the trailer AND the fence.


You said that the generator, trailer, and fence were damaged, yes? How could the plane do this if it flew over?


Aldo Marquis CIT
 
I don't, but I asked you a simply questions and asked you pose an answer one way or the other.


It is not a "simple question". There is no way for me to calculate those odds.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
No they report the plane NOC, which directly supports the flyover.

How many of the eyewitnesses who said they saw the plane NOC also reported that the plane flew OVER the pentagon?

Aldo Marquis CIT
 

Yes it does. Because it provides a plausible explanation for the flyover plane.

The presence of a seemingly plausible explanation is not proof or evidence that this was the case.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
nicepants
 
Of your "confirmed witnesses", how many specifically stated that they saw the plane pull up and/or fly over the Pentagon?

You saw the video. Have we indicated anything different?


Didn't get a number. How many?

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Absence of evidence is not evidence my friend.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
The lack of south side flight path witnesses and now proven fraudelant flight path is evidence of a cover-up.

?? You're contradicting yourself

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Sgt Brooks told us our movie was an eye opener and that "anything is possible" whenit comes to him being fooled? Does this sound like someone who is sure of an impact or unsure?


If he believes that "anything is possible" then I would say his n.o.c. claim would be just as suspect, wouldn't you?

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Just so I have it straight, how many witnesses confirm that they saw the plane fly on the south side of the Citgo?
How many contradict the north side?

Directly? None
By contradicting the claims of the noc witnesses: LOTS!

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
How many have you interviewed on camera that confirm this?

I have not interviewed any of these witnesses.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
No, of course I'm not. You know what I am saying. They were fooled into believing the plane hit the building. Because the plane was on the north side of the Citgo means it could not hit the building, so they were obviously fooled.


Aldo Marquis CIT
 
nicepants
 
If it were me, it would be easier for me to say "yes the plane hit the pentagon" then it would be to describe the flight path with any detail.

Wow. Now that is a doozy. Of course, if it were "you".


A yes or no answer (Hit or no hit) is vastly simpler than trying to plot a jet which was moving at 500mph.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
No. The North side witnesses SAW the plane on the north side and they claim they saw it impact.

And yet you claim that these 2 things could not have happened together, which means the noc witnesses are wrong.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Oh, ok so they are not right??? Is that what you are saying? If so, EXPLAIN how they are all incorrect about what they saw.


I'm not saying "they are not right". I'm saying that you can't just assume that all of the evidence which disagrees with their claims is invalid.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
It is proven and airtight because it has been CONFIRMED and NOT REFUTED, do you understand?

The same thing can be said for the claims of the plane impacting the Pentagon. Do you understand? None of your eyewitnesses refute the claim that the plane hit the Pentagon.


Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Your personal incredulity, omitting/ingoring of accompanying evidence and vague tip-toeing around calling them incorrect without explaining how they are all incorrect is not a form of evidence.


When have I used personal incredulity as evidence?
When have I called your witnesses incorrect?

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Your poor and unresearched interpretation of a list of possible witness excerpts does not constitute proof against the CONFIRMATION and CORROBORATION of the north side approach.


I never said it was proof against, only evidence against.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
No I haven't. You are playing word games and ignoring the fundamental basics of what has been conveyed. Did you miss the part where I stated why one would be NEGATED? How can your list even be submitted when you have not even analyzed the accounts. YOU haven't even personally confirmed an account. You are basing this on a sensationalized excerpt or blurb of a "witness" account without even confirming or clarifying details or positions. Apples and rocks.


No word games. Mutually exclusive means that both cannot be true. You have been taking both sides of that issue. If noc and impact contradict each other, they are mutually exclusive.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Did you ever come up with an explanation how they are all "incorrect" at the same time, about the same detail?
I never said they are all incorrect. I just think it's wrong to assume that they are correct without looking at all of the evidence.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Nicepants, "the rest of their account" is a published excerpt without any direct confirmation or clarification.

You are cheating and this is getting pretty sickening. You keep acting as if your "impact" list is VALID. IT IS NOT.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND?????????????


Your own witnesses claim that they saw an impact. Are those statements "valid"?

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Oh please do tell, what does that make them then? Are they right yes or no? If YOU say they are not, please explain how they all got the same detail wrong at the same time.


6 people saying the same thing does not make them right. It doesn't make them wrong either. All it means is that they agree.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 

7 eyewitnesses in a position to see and confirm the south/north side flight path filmed on location could potentially contradict the noc witnesses.


You said yourself that there aren't that many people in a position to see which side of the citgo station the plane was on. But, if the impact and noc claims are mutually exclusive, then any confirmed and corroborated eyewitness of a plane impact would contradict the noc claims, correct?

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
The FDR was found at the alleged "impact" site AND at the C-ring. In one account by Brian Moravitz and another firefighter and in another account by Allen Kylsheimer. So which is it?


The point is, the FDR was found inside the pentagon...which would not be possible if the plane flew over.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Oh ok. So when they found the bloody glove at OJ's it automatically means he killed those people right? The same people he was NOT convicted of killing. The same glove they showed did not fit. Just like the FDR that does not show the approach we have documented.


Different scenario. Bloody glove doesn't mean OJ did it. FDR @ Pentagon means plane @ pentagon.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

Missed this in your last post:

Quote:
 
It also means that even if someone had VIDEO TAPE of the plane flying South of Citgo, you would claim that it was doctored/fake/etc, because accepting that evidence would mean that your 6 noc witnesses were wrong.


No it means that it would never be accepted because we have proven that they manipulate video. We proved when we went there and actually spoke with a participant who provided that information, we didn't sit there and lap up everything these scumbags gave us, like someone I know.

Nicepants, you can't even concede the problems in the story. You are in severe denial and have a superiority complex. Let it go.
Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Jan 18 2008, 12:07 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Aldo Marquis CIT
Jan 18 2008, 12:05 PM
Missed this in your last post:

Quote:
 
It also means that even if someone had VIDEO TAPE of the plane flying South of Citgo, you would claim that it was doctored/fake/etc, because accepting that evidence would mean that your 6 noc witnesses were wrong.


No it means that it would never be accepted because we have proven that they manipulate video. We proved when we went there and actually spoke with a participant who provided that information, we didn't sit there and lap up everything these scumbags gave us, like someone I know.

Nicepants, you can't even concede the problems in the story. You are in severe denial and have a superiority complex. Let it go.
I can certainly concede problems and inconsistencies in the story.

What I cannot accept is your absolute unwavering 100% stance that the 6 noc witnesses cannot be proven wrong, no matter what. Even if we had 500 different video tapes, photographs, live news footage, etc, of the plane flying South of Citgo, you've said that NOTHING would falsify their claims. When you investigate with that mindset, you're always going to end up at the same conclusion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Quick question for the CIT guys. Do you have a graphic (preferrably satellite photo or similar) in which the OT flight path and the NOC flight path deduced from your witnesses are both plotted? A "looking straight down" view from above would be preferrable, I think I may be able to use that to help explain some of the differences in opinion we seem to be having. Thanks!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
So you trust that we have accurately portrayed their statements, do you trust their statements. If not, explain how they could be wrong.


I trust their statements no more than I trust the statements of other eyewitnesses who reported different things.

How could they be wrong? As I'm sure you are well-aware, it is possible for witnesses to be wrong, for any number of reasons.


Wow. Wow. So your trust for a small experpt or 25-30 second news interview with NO true questioning or obtaining of details in relation to how the plane hit is the same for the very specific and lengthy interviews that centered around a very simple and specific detail?

Is that what you are saying?

Stop being vague. List the reasons that you would believe all these witnesses are wrong about the same simple detail. Do you think this is a game where you can play coy and vague and escape out of questions while you ambiguously cast doubt on these witnesses?

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
If someone claims to have seen a plane hit the pentagon, it would be unconfirmed testimony of someone claiming to have seen an impact.


How could such testimony be "confirmed"?


Go speak to them and determine the validity of their account.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
If they are on Rt 27, they fall into the category of being fooled or lying and do not contradict the north side. If they are on the outside perimeter looking toward the Pentagon, they have to explain why they didn't see the plane/jet that veered away at the time of the explosion


If they eyewitnesses did not report a plane/jet veering away, why do you assume this to be the case?


Because they are lying or they didn't actually catch the approach/ alleged "impact", only the rising fireball smoke plume.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Ok, let's try this differently. List them. Show me how YOU determined that "they said" they saw and could actually physically see the impact.


What "they said" is clearly spelled out on the pages I previously linked to. I made no claims as to whether any of them could physically see the impact or not.


Oh you are truly a gem. Do you actually feel good about what you do here on this board. You should read your replies. You are very evasive, slippery, and a constant contradiction.

Look, here's an update and I don't ever want to see it again-THERE ARE NOT 104 WITNESSES TO AN IMPACT. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

Now that you and I have an understanding, you can refer to my list whenever you like.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
No, what we have conceded is that they are around 25 that could have actually been in a position to see an impact. It does not mean the saw an impact and it does not mean that there are not other problems in their account.


So which of these 25 accounts do you take issue with?



Read my list and start there.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Nope. It means that 6 witnesses have confirmed the north side and 0 will or can refute it.

Ok. How many witnesses can refute Lloyd England's account? See? it works both ways. Just because there isn't a direct contradiction by another eyewitness doesn't make the opposite true.



You are just playing word games and playing with people's minds. The 6 north side witnesses, "contradict", they "implicate", they "refute".


Aldo Marquis CIT
 
It means you will not and have not produced any witnesses filmed on location, with proof they were there, and a logical representation of their account that would allow them to see the plane on the south side of the Citgo.


I have no reason to film interviews on location. Besides, we've already established that, even if I produced video of an eyewitness who claims to have seen the plane south of citgo, you would not accept the claim, because it would invalidate the claims of your witnesses.

No. I said if they didn't exist. I said you have to produce 7, remember.

You have no reason to film interviews on location, because you are delusional and live on a forum that allows you the luxury of keeping everything status quo in your brain. You are scared to talk to witnesses, you are scared to talk to the north side witnesses.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
It is about the Citgo because it proves the deception. It proves the conspiracy. It is the simple point of reference that tells us what exactly happened on Rt 27 South. It means"impact" witnesses were fooled. deduced or lying, because they do not or will not directly refute the north side flight path.


How could anyone refute this,when you claim:


?

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Tell me, were all "104" imaginary witnesses you have in a position to tell which side of the gas station the plane was on? NOPE. Guess who was? Sgt Brooks, Sgt. Lagasse, Robert Turcios, Levi Stephens, Sean Boger.


If no one else was in a position to see which side of the gas station it was on, there's no way that anyone else could refute these claims directly.


See, reading comprehension is a b. I said were 'all' 104 in a position? You said, "Well golly geez, if you're saying NO ONE was in a position, then there's NO WAY (oh noes!) these claims could be refuted".

Man, oh man, I must be screwed. No, it means, exactly what my point was; 104 'wannahafta believe on face value' witnesses do not tell you which side of the gas station the plane is on, while the 6 witnesses we interviewed could and did and guess what? They all said the same thing.


Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
ok, let's try this again. Since 6 people confirmed the north side approach is it likely that the plane pulled up or is it likely that it hit the first floor? Remember, i didn't ask you about the "1 person" , I asked you about the north side which is confirmed by 6 people who were there.


Reporting the plane north of Citgo is not reporting that the plane pulled up and flew over.


Thats not what I asked you, Mr. slippery.

Let's try this again. Since 6 people confirmed the north side approach is it likely that the plane pulled up or is it likely that it hit the first floor? Remember, i didn't ask you about the "1 person" , I asked you about the north side which is confirmed by 6 people who were there.


Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Did the DNA or fingerprints see the plane on the south side? Did the rescue/recovery people who collected the DNA see the plane on the south side?


If the plane didn't hit the pentagon, then remains/dna/plane parts could not have been recovered.


If the plane was on the north side of the Citgo, the DNA/plane parts could not have been in there.

If the DNA was planted or switched, then the plane could not have hit the building.

See, I can do it too.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
First of all, what proof do you have it was "hit"? ONCE AGAIN, the FDR and the alleged left wing tilt for the vent structure is IRRECONCILABLE with the damage to the trailer AND the fence.


You said that the generator, trailer, and fence were damaged, yes? How could the plane do this if it flew over?


Oh this is getting silly. You are floundering. Did you even review the links I posted on them? The evidence? Are you trapped in an episode of Twilight Zone or Groundhog's Day? Your spinning and these circles are making me dizzy. Let me know when you're ready to respond to the analyses I presented you with.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
I don't, but I asked you a simply questions and asked you pose an answer one way or the other.


It is not a "simple question". There is no way for me to calculate those odds.


It is a simple question, it is asking you make a guess or a bet if you will. No one is asking you to calculate the odds. Just place bet.

For insance, if you were to place a bet on whether or not the pole would have damaged/scratched his hood, what would your money be on.

Nevermind, you already lost.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
No they report the plane NOC, which directly supports the flyover.

How many of the eyewitnesses who said they saw the plane NOC also reported that the plane flew OVER the pentagon?


How many did you see in our interviews? I remember only seeing witnesses who adamantly detail the plane being on the north side of the Citgo.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 

Yes it does. Because it provides a plausible explanation for the flyover plane.

The presence of a seemingly plausible explanation is not proof or evidence that this was the case.


Actually in this case it is, because those bogus accounts that give a plausible explanation came from real people who could be charged with being operatives in the operation.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
nicepants
 
Of your "confirmed witnesses", how many specifically stated that they saw the plane pull up and/or fly over the Pentagon?

You saw the video. Have we indicated anything different?


Didn't get a number. How many?


Ya didn't? Search around, I'm sure a bright guy like you will find it.

So have you spoke with any witnesses who were down on the ground there yet? Did you find out why everyone we spoke with reported the plane on the north side? Ever speak to Mike Walter about seeing the plane in a bank? Just curious.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Absence of evidence is not evidence my friend.

Aldo Marquis CIT
 
The lack of south side flight path witnesses and now proven fraudelant flight path is evidence of a cover-up.

?? You're contradicting yourself



Um, the "lack of southside witnesses", means, there are NO southside witnesses.


Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Sgt Brooks told us our movie was an eye opener and that "anything is possible" whenit comes to him being fooled? Does this sound like someone who is sure of an impact or unsure?


If he believes that "anything is possible" then I would say his n.o.c. claim would be just as suspect, wouldn't you?


Did you forget the part where he stands by where he saw the plane and was referring to the flyover?
Desperate much?

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Just so I have it straight, how many witnesses confirm that they saw the plane fly on the south side of the Citgo?
How many contradict the north side?

Directly? None
By contradicting the claims of the noc witnesses: LOTS!



Yawn. Vague generalizations about a magical unresearched list does nothing to contradict what we got buddy.


[
Quote:
 
quote=Aldo Marquis CIT]How many have you interviewed on camera that confirm this?

I have not interviewed any of these witnesses.[/quote]

Why not?

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
No, of course I'm not. You know what I am saying. They were fooled into believing the plane hit the building. Because the plane was on the north side of the Citgo means it could not hit the building, so they were obviously fooled.


Aldo Marquis CIT
 
nicepants
 
If it were me, it would be easier for me to say "yes the plane hit the pentagon" then it would be to describe the flight path with any detail.

Wow. Now that is a doozy. Of course, if it were "you".


A yes or no answer (Hit or no hit) is vastly simpler than trying to plot a jet which was moving at 500mph.


Oh my gawd. :blink:

You know it was moving 500 mph? Really? Please do tell how do you know that?

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
No. The North side witnesses SAW the plane on the north side and they claim they saw it impact.

And yet you claim that these 2 things could not have happened together, which means the noc witnesses are wrong.


No. No. No. It means they are wrong about the impact and right about which side of the gas station the plane was on.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Oh, ok so they are not right??? Is that what you are saying? If so, EXPLAIN how they are all incorrect about what they saw.


I'm not saying "they are not right". I'm saying that you can't just assume that all of the evidence which disagrees with their claims is invalid.


Wow. Ok, this is getting redundant. You lost, Nicepants.


Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
It is proven and airtight because it has been CONFIRMED and NOT REFUTED, do you understand?

The same thing can be said for the claims of the plane impacting the Pentagon. Do you understand? None of your eyewitnesses refute the claim that the plane hit the Pentagon.


Um, they don't have to. :huh:

They reported it on the north side. That's all they need to do.


Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Your personal incredulity, omitting/ingoring of accompanying evidence and vague tip-toeing around calling them incorrect without explaining how they are all incorrect is not a form of evidence.


When have I used personal incredulity as evidence?
When have I called your witnesses incorrect?


You use it to believe the account of Lloyd England in light of overwhelming evidence. That is personal incredulity.

You have called them incorrect by implying it and supporting the official story, while ignoring and omitting the evidence that directly implicates Lloyd and the OS.


Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Your poor and unresearched interpretation of a list of possible witness excerpts does not constitute proof against the CONFIRMATION and CORROBORATION of the north side approach.


I never said it was proof against, only evidence against.


Ain't even evidence, chief.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
No I haven't. You are playing word games and ignoring the fundamental basics of what has been conveyed. Did you miss the part where I stated why one would be NEGATED? How can your list even be submitted when you have not even analyzed the accounts. YOU haven't even personally confirmed an account. You are basing this on a sensationalized excerpt or blurb of a "witness" account without even confirming or clarifying details or positions. Apples and rocks.


No word games. Mutually exclusive means that both cannot be true. You have been taking both sides of that issue. If noc and impact contradict each other, they are mutually exclusive.


...And the impact is incorrect. next.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Did you ever come up with an explanation how they are all "incorrect" at the same time, about the same detail?
I never said they are all incorrect. I just think it's wrong to assume that they are correct without looking at all of the evidence.


Oh what a vague nonsense filled response. The evidence has been looked at over and over and over, you are manipulating people like a con-artist. The point is we went there to find what the plane did in it's last few seconds of flight according to the official story BY SPEAKING WITH EYEWITNESSES, it does not work. PERIOD. The evidence has been looked at, your trickery redirecting people back to it and reinforcing it as if it has never been questioned or proven fraudelant is not going to change it and is dishonest to say the least.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Nicepants, "the rest of their account" is a published excerpt without any direct confirmation or clarification.

You are cheating and this is getting pretty sickening. You keep acting as if your "impact" list is VALID. IT IS NOT.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND?????????????


Your own witnesses claim that they saw an impact. Are those statements "valid"?


Wow. You're out of the water and just flopping around wildly.

No those statements aren't valid because they saw the plane on the north side and only "thought" the plane hit the building. If they saw it on the north side, it could not have hit.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Oh please do tell, what does that make them then? Are they right yes or no? If YOU say they are not, please explain how they all got the same detail wrong at the same time.


6 people saying the same thing does not make them right. It doesn't make them wrong either. All it means is that they agree.


Oh you are just neutralizing. I got it. you just want to keep it limbo and not take sides, while trying cast doubt in some bizarro world up is down is up tactic.

I think we are just about done here.



Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 

7 eyewitnesses in a position to see and confirm the south/north side flight path filmed on location could potentially contradict the noc witnesses.


You said yourself that there aren't that many people in a position to see which side of the citgo station the plane was on. But, if the impact and noc claims are mutually exclusive, then any confirmed and corroborated eyewitness of a plane impact would contradict the noc claims, correct?


No. The impact is incorrect. You just choose to be in denial and not listen to what the witnesses told you about this very simple detail.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
The FDR was found at the alleged "impact" site AND at the C-ring. In one account by Brian Moravitz and another firefighter and in another account by Allen Kylsheimer. So which is it?


The point is, the FDR was found inside the pentagon...which would not be possible if the plane flew over.


We covered this. See the Lloyd thread. The FDR contains fraudelant data this has been established.

Quote:
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
 
Oh ok. So when they found the bloody glove at OJ's it automatically means he killed those people right? The same people he was NOT convicted of killing. The same glove they showed did not fit. Just like the FDR that does not show the approach we have documented.


Different scenario. Bloody glove doesn't mean OJ did it. FDR @ Pentagon means plane @ pentagon.


No same scenario. They were only able to make the FDR stick in the minds of the gullible and willing, like yourself.

Nicepants, I think it's clear that we are done here. You are in denial, I am in action.

Peace!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Aldo Marquis CIT
Jan 18 2008, 01:01 PM
Nicepants, I think it's clear that we are done here. You are in denial, I am in action.

Peace!
Since Aldo has now given up, I would be happy to continue this discussion with someone else.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Smiling_Gorilla
Member Avatar
troll
Aldo Marquis CIT
Jan 17 2008, 03:00 PM
Because the FDR and physical evidence do not support the impact of a 757.
The FDR data most certainly does. Calum Douglas, who gave the presentation for "Pilots for Truth" (or whatever they call themselves), said exactly that:

"In the raw file, the flight path shows the plane traveling at the correct angle to knock over the light poles and pass through the hole in the building" - Calum Douglas
Flight 77: The Flight Data Recorder Investigation Files (statement made at 21:16)

What didn't match up to the FDR data was the animation, which indicates an error in the animation software's interpretation of the file, not fabricated FDR data.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

Smiling_Gorilla
Jan 19 2008, 07:46 PM
Aldo Marquis CIT
Jan 17 2008, 03:00 PM
Because the FDR and physical evidence do not support the impact of a 757.
The FDR data most certainly does. Calum Douglas, who gave the presentation for "Pilots for Truth" (or whatever they call themselves), said exactly that:

"In the raw file, the flight path shows the plane traveling at the correct angle to knock over the light poles and pass through the hole in the building" - Calum Douglas
Flight 77: The Flight Data Recorder Investigation Files (statement made at 21:16)

What didn't match up to the FDR data was the animation, which indicates an error in the animation software's interpretation of the file, not fabricated FDR data.
Yeah so?

You don't think we know that?

The reported descent angle and altitude is still irreconcilable with the physical damage.

10 minute animation demonstrating:


Link here if embed doesn't work.

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

I noticed that one of your NOC witnesses, Lagasse, describes the impact in detail, including the yawing motion of the jet after the initial impact. Does this account contradict your theory of a flyover?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bileduct

nicepants
Jan 20 2008, 03:44 AM
I noticed that one of your NOC witnesses, Lagasse, describes the impact in detail, including the yawing motion of the jet after the initial impact. Does this account contradict your theory of a flyover?
Don't be silly, pants. You obviously have not read the disclaimer -

*Special note: Many detractors to the information we present suggest we are wrong because the witnesses at the CITGO station believe the plane hit the building. This is what true critical thinkers call circular logic. We claim the fact that the witnesses place the plane on the north side of the station proves it was used as an instrument of deception during a perfectly timed military sleight of hand illusion because it is impossible for a plane in that location to have created the physical damage. In other words; the intended goal was to fool witnesses into believing the plane hit the building. The fact that the witnesses were successfully deceived exactly as the perpetrators intended does not prove that they are incorrect in their placement of the plane. Quite the opposite is true. Their placement of the plane proves that they were deceived in regards to the impact.

Lagasse -

* Saw the plane travel north of the Citgo station - CONFIRMED - Devastating evidence that single handedly proves that Flight 77 was replaced in mid air with a drone airplane that pulled up less than 500 yards from the Pentagon at more than 500mph and flew over the building shrouded by smoke and a fireball in an amazing and elaborate display of sleight of hand
* Saw a silver coloured plane - NOT CONFIRMED - Penn & Teller tricked him with elaborate sleight of hand
* Saw an American Airlines plane - NOT CONFIRMED - Penn & Teller tricked him with elaborate sleight of hand
* Saw a silver, American Airlines plane collide with the Pentagon - NOT CONFIRMED - Penn & Teller tricked him with elaborate sleight of hand
* Disputes the existence of an "official theory" that places the plane south of the Citgo station - NOT CONFIRMED - Dude what are you smoking?
* Disputes the placement of the clipped light poles and Lloyd's taxi - NOT CONFIRMED - The Pentagon Building Performance Report says otherwise!
* Categorically denies that a missile or Global Hawk hit the Pentagon - NOT CONFIRMED - More sneaky sleight of hand!

In summary, Lagasse's testimony cannot be trusted, with the exception of the placement of Flight 77's path north of the Citgo station. Everything else he says is either the result of poor memory (the guy couldn't even remember which pump he had used!) or his being duped by elaborate, grand scale sleight of hand.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Smiling_Gorilla
Member Avatar
troll
Craig Ranke CIT
Jan 19 2008, 09:23 PM
Smiling_Gorilla
Jan 19 2008, 07:46 PM
Aldo Marquis CIT
Jan 17 2008, 03:00 PM
Because the FDR and physical evidence do not support the impact of a 757.
The FDR data most certainly does. Calum Douglas, who gave the presentation for "Pilots for Truth" (or whatever they call themselves), said exactly that:

"In the raw file, the flight path shows the plane traveling at the correct angle to knock over the light poles and pass through the hole in the building" - Calum Douglas
Flight 77: The Flight Data Recorder Investigation Files (statement made at 21:16)

What didn't match up to the FDR data was the animation, which indicates an error in the animation software's interpretation of the file, not fabricated FDR data.
Yeah so?

You don't think we know that?
When you say "Because the FDR and physical evidence do not support the impact of a 757", yes. That shows without doubt that you don't know the FDR data shows the airplane on the correct path to hit the poles and the building.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

bileduct
Jan 20 2008, 04:48 AM


In summary, Lagasse's testimony cannot be trusted, with the exception of the placement of Flight 77's path north of the Citgo station. Everything else he says is either the result of poor memory (the guy couldn't even remember which pump he had used!) or his being duped by elaborate, grand scale sleight of hand.
What about Brooks, Paik, Turcios, Stephens, Boger, and the new north side witness?

Corroboration is a bitch isn't it?

Witnesses are fallible.

They make mistakes and are subject to embellishment, deception, and influence.

Do investigators completely throw out testimony the second they find out that a witness made a mistake?

Of course not.

They find the details that can be corroborated and that is what we go with.

Unfortunately for you and the official story ALL of the witnesses saw the plane on the north side so we do not have to rely on Lagasse with this claim.

If you don't understand the implications of this scientifically proven detail I suggest you study up on it.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

Smiling_Gorilla
Jan 20 2008, 11:59 AM
When you say "Because the FDR and physical evidence do not support the impact of a 757", yes. That shows without doubt that you don't know the FDR data shows the airplane on the correct path to hit the poles and the building.
The real world is 3-D.

Altitude and descent angle.

Look up what they mean.....watch this presentation based off the FDR and get back with me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Craig Ranke CIT
Jan 20 2008, 01:42 PM
Witnesses are fallible.

They make mistakes and are subject to embellishment, deception, and influence.
That's some good advice to keep in mind when considering the NOC eyewitness accounts, remembering also that those points do not only apply to witnesses on one side, nor only to part of a witnesses testimony.
Edited by nicepants, Jan 20 2008, 02:47 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

nicepants
Jan 20 2008, 02:45 PM
Craig Ranke CIT
Jan 20 2008, 01:42 PM
Witnesses are fallible.

They make mistakes and are subject to embellishment, deception, and influence.
That's some good advice to keep in mind when considering the NOC eyewitness accounts.
That's who I was referring to. They made typical and honest mistakes.

That is why investigators rely on corroboration to figure out the true details.

None of them got what side of the building the plane flew wrong.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Craig Ranke CIT
Jan 20 2008, 02:48 PM
nicepants
Jan 20 2008, 02:45 PM
Craig Ranke CIT
Jan 20 2008, 01:42 PM
Witnesses are fallible.

They make mistakes and are subject to embellishment, deception, and influence.
That's some good advice to keep in mind when considering the NOC eyewitness accounts.
That's who I was referring to. They made typical and honest mistakes.

That is why investigators rely on corroboration to figure out the true details.

None of them got what side of the building the plane flew wrong.
What data did you cross-check their accounts against to confirm that they "didn't get it wrong"?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

nicepants
Jan 20 2008, 03:04 PM
What data did you cross-check their accounts against to confirm that they "didn't get it wrong"?
Any and all witnesses who were in a position to tell what side of the station the plane flew.

Independent corroboration IS "cross-checking".

Since all witnesses report that it was on the north side this detail has been scientifically proven.

There is no other possible independent data source other than the eyewitnesses since all video and the FDR are completely controlled, vetted, and supplied by the suspect.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Craig Ranke CIT
Jan 20 2008, 03:07 PM
nicepants
Jan 20 2008, 03:04 PM
What data did you cross-check their accounts against to confirm that they "didn't get it wrong"?
Any and all witnesses who were in a position to tell what side of the station the plane flew.

Independent corroboration IS "cross-checking".

Since all witnesses report that it was on the north side this detail has been scientifically proven.

There is no other possible independent data source other than the eyewitnesses since all video and the FDR are completely controlled, vetted, and supplied by the suspect.
One source of data would be the rescue workers who reported that the plane did, in fact, hit the Pentagon.

But...even if you choose to ignore that, you've said that perspective alone could cause someone to believe the plane was on a different path than someone with a different perspective. How many other witnesses (besides the ones who were at the citgo station) did you interview to confirm the NOC claim from a different perspective? (I mean witnesses who were not AT the citgo station when the plane flew over)
Edited by nicepants, Jan 20 2008, 03:15 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

nicepants
Jan 20 2008, 03:15 PM
One source of data would be the rescue workers who reported that the plane did, in fact, hit the Pentagon.
I'm not following you here.

If they are not witnesses to the event how could they possibly know for sure?

It would be a guess on their part.

Plus what about the rescue workers who DON'T believe a plane hit? We have an interview with a fire captain who has been on multiple plane crashes in his career and was all throughout the Pentagon on 9/11 including the AE drive by the C-ring hole and he says that that there is no way a plane caused the damage.

Most of the rescue workers were volunteers.....not professionals like him.

We have support from other first responders and victims as well as you can see by the letter on our website.

So in essence I guess you're right.....EVEN THAT data supports the north side claim!



Quote:
 

But...even if you choose to ignore that, you've said that perspective alone could cause someone to believe the plane was on a different path than someone with a different perspective. How many other witnesses (besides the ones who were at the citgo station) did you interview to confirm the NOC claim from a different perspective? (I mean witnesses who were not AT the citgo station when the plane flew over)


All witnesses with a vantage point to be able to tell and were aware of the citgo station confirm the north side.

We have spoken with 10's of witnesses and heavily analyzed all published statements.

Sure the exact placement could vary minimally due to perspective.

No it is not logical to suggest they were all drastically mistaken the exact same way with the station being the reference point while they are all on or right near that property.

500 to 800 feet on the complete opposite side of the station in a different trajectory is ridiculously drastic.

About 100 feet difference on the same side of the station in the same trajectory is to be expected.







Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Craig Ranke CIT
Jan 20 2008, 03:24 PM
nicepants
Jan 20 2008, 03:15 PM
One source of data would be the rescue workers who reported that the plane did, in fact, hit the Pentagon.
I'm not following you here.

If they are not witnesses to the event how could they possibly know for sure?

It would be a guess on their part.

Plus what about the rescue workers who DON'T believe a plane hit? We have an interview with a fire captain who has been on multiple plane crashes in his career and was all throughout the Pentagon on 9/11 including the AE drive by the C-ring hole and he says that that there is no way a plane caused the damage.

Most of the rescue workers were volunteers.....not professionals like him.

We have support from other first responders and victims as well as you can see by the letter on our website.

So in essence I guess you're right.....EVEN THAT data supports the north side claim!



Quote:
 

But...even if you choose to ignore that, you've said that perspective alone could cause someone to believe the plane was on a different path than someone with a different perspective. How many other witnesses (besides the ones who were at the citgo station) did you interview to confirm the NOC claim from a different perspective? (I mean witnesses who were not AT the citgo station when the plane flew over)


All witnesses with a vantage point to be able to tell and were aware of the citgo station confirm the north side.

We have spoken with 10's of witnesses and heavily analyzed all published statements.

Sure the exact placement could vary minimally due to perspective.

No it is not logical to suggest they were all drastically mistaken the exact same way with the station being the reference point while they are all on or right near that property.

500 to 800 feet on the complete opposite side of the station in a different trajectory is ridiculously drastic.

About 100 feet difference on the same side of the station in the same trajectory is to be expected.







"10s of witnesses" ? How many, specifically?

Two of your accounts differ by approximately 300 feet...not 100.

Just because they can't plot the Citgo doesn't mean their flight paths are non-valuable. (Even one of the witnesses in your video was unable to see the Citgo from his vantage point)
Edited by nicepants, Jan 20 2008, 04:09 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

nicepants
Jan 20 2008, 04:08 PM
"10s of witnesses" ? How many, specifically?
Never counted. I believe there is a comprehensive list available here.

However I know that we have spoken with ALL known witnesses who were on the station's property and anywhere else would not have as good of a vantage point to be able to tell what side it was.


Quote:
 

Two of your accounts differ by approximately 300 feet...not 100.


There is about 100 foot margin of error between them. If the plane was 100 feet closer than Lagassse thought it would only be about 100 feet further than Turcios thought especially when considering the 124 foot wingspan of the plane.

Given their different perspectives the notion that they made this negligible mistake is to be expected since humans are not computers and they only saw the plane for about 2 or 3 seconds.

The notion that they were ALL independently drastically mistaken in the exact same way and that the plane was 500 to 800 feet away on the complete opposite side of the station in a different trajectory is not a viable or remotely logical consideration.


Quote:
 

Just because they can't plot the Citgo doesn't mean their flight paths are non-valuable. (Even one of the witnesses in your video was unable to see the Citgo from his vantage point)


Yeah so?

We know that.

We now have the flight path plotted and supported all the way back east of the Potomac.

This destroys the official data.


Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Jan 20 2008, 05:08 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic »
Add Reply