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 (8,689 Views)
Reddawn

Mr_Gullible
Jan 22 2008, 05:43 PM
FWIW,

CIT members seem to be dominating the Pentagon threads and discussions.
Very true.

That's because their "theories" have been debunked so any times elsewhere that it's old hat.

Come on IVXX, don't ban me for just saying this but...

(And Gid, I know you're a pft guy as well but please give us a little rope here...)

There was a reason Craig and Aldo were banned at the last forum. And, it's not just because they couldn't "behave."

It's because their theory is nonsense. It should be (and was) catagorized with the NPT at the WTC.

It's NONSENSE.

It's a DISTRACTION and should be treated as such.

PLEASE everyone. Take a minute and THINK.

Otherwise, you're part of the problem instead of part of the solution.

Of course, the CIT groupthink will likely overwhelm this post but I hope it can remain for those that are truly looking for the truth.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Domenick DiMaggio

Reddawn
Jan 22 2008, 09:19 PM
Of course, the CIT groupthink will likely overwhelm this post but I hope it can remain for those that are truly looking for the truth.
Lets talk about "groupthink" and "truth".

Now that it isn't Russell & Raven & RacerX & Red Dawn & PRC & Terral, etc vs. 'The Shanksville Specialist' Dom you all want to cry.

There's some real TRUTH.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nevermind
Member Avatar
Oh, you didn't know?
Guys, please stick to the facts and issues instead of the fingerpointing and accusations.

This means you, Reddawn.

And do not categorize them with NPT. No planers insist no plane was involved despite the OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary, period. Flyover supporters at least support that a plane was involved. What the plane did and what kind of plane it was is AND WILL FOREVER BE up for grabs until the government is more forecoming with info.

If you're so confident that flyover witnesses are so blatanly wrong and it is that obvious, then I think the evidence and debates can speak for themselves instead of somebody crying "foul" every three posts.
Edited by Nevermind, Jan 22 2008, 09:51 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Reddawn

Gideon524
Jan 22 2008, 09:40 PM
If you're so confident that flyover witnesses are so blatanly wrong and it is that obvious, then I think the evidence and debates can speak for themselves instead of somebody crying "foul" every three posts.
I agree with sticking to the topic. Sorry if I wandered.

But, you said, "If you're so confident that flyover witnesses are so blatanly wrong..."

Would you care to list these flyover witnesses? Would anybody?

After all, this is what the thread is about.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nevermind
Member Avatar
Oh, you didn't know?
Reddawn
Jan 22 2008, 10:29 PM

But, you said, "If you're so confident that flyover witnesses are so blatanly wrong..."

My mistake.

That's what I get for typing and trying to watch a movie at the same time.

I did not mean to say "flyover witnesses".
I meant to say "flyover supporters."

I need to proof read more.

As for the witnesses, I just call them North side Citgo witnesses, not flyover witnesses, but that's just me. They saw the plane on the north side.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nevermind
Member Avatar
Oh, you didn't know?
And Reddawn, because they have been welcomed back, how or why CIT was banned in the past is nobody's matter. It is over and the slate has been wiped clean. Now, I was not there when all that went down, but please do not speak for the LCF staff or their actions in the past. Stick to debunking CIT if you're confident you can. There is room for everyone...'cept NPTers. :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Reddawn

Gideon524
Jan 22 2008, 10:39 PM
Reddawn
Jan 22 2008, 10:29 PM

But, you said, "If you're so confident that flyover witnesses are so blatanly wrong..."

My mistake.

That's what I get for typing and trying to watch a movie at the same time.

I did not mean to say "flyover witnesses".
I meant to say "flyover supporters."

I need to proof read more.

As for the witnesses, I just call them North side Citgo witnesses, not flyover witnesses, but that's just me. They saw the plane on the north side.
I applaud you for your owning up to a simple mistake that we all make.

Lord knows, I make them every day.

I'll bow out for tonight as I'm probably not in the best frame of mind to discuss this without saying something I'll regret.

But, my respect level just went WAY up for you on that one...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Reddawn

Gideon524
Jan 22 2008, 10:46 PM
And Reddawn, because they have been welcomed back, how or why CIT was banned in the past is nobody's matter. It is over and the slate has been wiped clean. Now, I was not there when all that went down, but please do not speak for the LCF staff or their actions in the past. Stick to debunking CIT if you're confident you can. There is room for everyone...'cept NPTers. :D
Fair enough. :ermm:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

Thanks for handling that Gid but now that the "government loyalist" tag has been removed a response to Reddawn's disgusting attempt to catagorize us away as "debunked" or crazy "NPT'ers" by speaking for Dylan and the admins about things he knows nothing about is warranted.

Reddawn is an admitted jrefer. A government loyalist who is literally obsessed with FIGHTING the truth movement and defending the perpetrators of mass murder on 9/11 and the never ending fraudulent war on terror as a result.

He is part of a clique who constantly ridicules Dylan and everyone else in the movement and lies about the evidence in order to cover-up this horrible crime.

He just claimed that he "wandered" off topic in this thread but he did nothing of the sort.

It was his 7th post in the new forum and probably his first here in the Pentagon section and he used it NOT to discuss 9/11 evidence, but to spread lies about CIT.

JREF'ers only come here for only negative reasons.

Disruption, confusion, and division of the 9/11 truth movement.

This is their OBSESSION and LCF gives them the perfect drug to satisfy it.

This can never be forgotten as they try to blend in and get in good graces enough to be sneaky about their ultimate goal.

I vote for bringing back the "government loyalist" tag.

That was a brilliant idea.

They shouldn't mind.

Feel free to brand me with a "9/11 truth warrior" tag all you want.









Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nevermind
Member Avatar
Oh, you didn't know?
The government loyalist tag was actually my doing and I canned it because it was a bad idea and a decision I made in frustration with certain people.

I got onto Reddawn for throwing CIT in with no-planers and rest assured, it won't happen again.

Just because certain people say you're debunked doesn't necessarily mean that it is so.
Edited by Nevermind, Jan 22 2008, 11:17 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

Gideon524
Jan 22 2008, 11:16 PM
The government loyalist tag was actually my doing and I canned it because it was a bad idea
Why is it a bad idea?

I thought it was an EXCELLENT idea!

Think about it......

Truthers don't need to be labeled at jref because they are always obvious and they are only there to defend the movement, not infiltrate and divide the pseudoskeptic counter-movement.

JREF'ers have a much deeper, sneakier, and more sinister agenda when they come here.

Again.....label me a truther all you want.....why on earth would they mind be labeled government loyalists?

There really isn't one reason I can think of why it would be a bad idea.

It would help us keep tabs on them and definitely take away from their ability to blend in and divide.

Do you realize that the jref forum required me to provide them with 2 sets of ID to set up a profile?

I had a few thousand posts and they arbitrarily banned me.

They won't even let Aldo set up a profile because he won't provide scanned ID.

I really don't get why LCF would be so much more open to the other side when the other side has such disgusting motives for being here (and existing).







Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Jan 22 2008, 11:52 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr_Gullible

Oh gee, thanks Mr. Gullible.

Let us know when you have something of substance to contribute instead of silent observations.
Read my previous entry.
better to be quiet - which I tend to do. Thus, fewer posts = less errors or retractions needed.
I learn much more by listening (reading boards and theories) than by speaking (writing) without any "credentials".
You obvously don't credit me with any "credentials".

I never wanted CIT approval anyways.

Investigate onward !



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dbalsdon

Quote:
 
Truthers don't need to be labeled at jref because they are always obvious and they are only there to defend the movement, not infiltrate and divide the pseudoskeptic counter-movement.


Bull****. A number of truthers come to JREF, but instead of making it clear from the start they are truthers, claim to be fence sitters. They ask question after question, and completely ignore any answer they are given. After a while, when everyone has worked out they are a truther, they finally admit to it. Kinda pathetic really. But I suppose, its what you'd expect from a pathetic 'movement'
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nevermind
Member Avatar
Oh, you didn't know?
dbalsdon
Jan 24 2008, 12:41 PM
Quote:
 
Truthers don't need to be labeled at jref because they are always obvious and they are only there to defend the movement, not infiltrate and divide the pseudoskeptic counter-movement.


Bull****. A number of truthers come to JREF, but instead of making it clear from the start they are truthers, claim to be fence sitters. They ask question after question, and completely ignore any answer they are given. After a while, when everyone has worked out they are a truther, they finally admit to it. Kinda pathetic really. But I suppose, its what you'd expect from a pathetic 'movement'
and you can take a pathetic week off for insulting us. You wanna talk shit about us, go back to JREF.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Domenick DiMaggio

Smiling_Gorilla
Jan 20 2008, 05:39 PM
Craig Ranke CIT
Jan 20 2008, 01:44 PM
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.
Condescension will get you nowhere.
I watched the video. As I said previously in this thread, Calum Douglas, who gave the presentation for "Pilots for Truth", said that the raw FDR data shows the plane traveling at the correct angle to knock over the light poles and pass through the hole in the building. 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.

You are basing your conclusions on the animation, not the raw data. The animation does not accurately represent the raw data.
The way you word your posts always seems like you want to people to believe Calum is speaking on behalf of PFT and that PFT believes the conclusions reached by Calum, which many do not.


I brought this to Rob's attention and his reply to me was :

Quote:
 
Our mission statement represents P4T. Calum has his opinions as do many in our organization. Many opinions vary and some are extreme. But where we all agree and are unified, is the mission statement.




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Calcas

Back to the OP.

So, there are no flyover witnesses. If the cit theory is correct, why not?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

Calcas
Jan 24 2008, 08:33 PM
Back to the OP.

So, there are no flyover witnesses. If the cit theory is correct, why not?

What theory?

It's the only logical conclusion based on the witness desciptions of what the plane did.

How did the plane hit approaching from the north side of the gas station?

How did the plane hit the first floor if it pulled up?

Is the north side approach a theory? Is the pull-up?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Aldo Marquis CIT
Jan 25 2008, 01:59 PM
Calcas
Jan 24 2008, 08:33 PM
Back to the OP.

So, there are no flyover witnesses. If the cit theory is correct, why not?

What theory?

It's the only logical conclusion based on the witness desciptions of what the plane did.

How did the plane hit approaching from the north side of the gas station?

How did the plane hit the first floor if it pulled up?

Is the north side approach a theory? Is the pull-up?
Here's a theory:

Your witnesses saw a plane flying between 300-500 miles per hour at under 1,000 ft AGL for 1-3 seconds and incorrectly interpreted its location. How were you able to rule out this possibility?
Edited by nicepants, Jan 25 2008, 02:39 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

nicepants
Jan 25 2008, 02:38 PM

How were you able to rule out this possibility?
Scientifically via independent corroboration from all known witnesses some even with different perspectives that gave them a REALLY good view like this:

Posted Image

This man:
Posted Image

Was in this tower:
Posted Image

"It would be on my right or the gas station's left. If I'm looking out my window cause I'm looking toward the gas station.....it would be on my right hand side."

He also saw the plane bank over the Navy Annex further destroying the official flight path, FDR, and further supporting the north side path:

"As he was coming towards me it just seemed like he was tilting the aircraft to his right. It was almost like....not really going in nose first...it's just like almost like at an angle."


The fact that you refuse to accept unanimous testimony from so many credible witnesses that is not directly refuted by any previously published accounts proves your confirmation bias.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Craig Ranke CIT
Jan 25 2008, 02:47 PM
nicepants
Jan 25 2008, 02:38 PM

How were you able to rule out this possibility?
Scientifically via independent corroboration from all known witnesses some even with different perspectives that gave them a REALLY good view like this:

Posted Image

This man:
Posted Image

Was in this tower:
Posted Image

"It would be on my right or the gas station's left. If I'm looking out my window cause I'm looking toward the gas station.....it would be on my right hand side."

He also saw the plane bank over the Navy Annex further destroying the official flight path, FDR, and further supporting the north side path:

"As he was coming towards me it just seemed like he was tilting the aircraft to his right. It was almost like....not really going in nose first...it's just like almost like at an angle."


The fact that you refuse to accept unanimous testimony from so many credible witnesses that is not directly refuted by any previously published accounts proves your confirmation bias.
Again I ask you

"How were you able to rule out the possibility that your NOC witnesses were wrong or mistaken?" The fact that they all agree does not rule out that possibility.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

nicepants
Jan 25 2008, 02:38 PM


Here's a theory:

Your witnesses saw a plane flying between 300-500 miles per hour at under 1,000 ft AGL for 1-3 seconds and incorrectly interpreted its location. How were you able to rule out this possibility?
Incorrectly? Where did you get that?

The witnesses all placed the plane on the north side. What was incorrect about their account?

Who are you to determine it is incorrect? What makes them incorrect? Your "theory"?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

nicepants
Jan 25 2008, 02:55 PM

Again I ask you

"How were you able to rule out the possibility that your NOC witnesses were wrong or mistaken?" The fact that they all agree does not rule out that possibility.



Actually, yes, yes it does.

Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Jan 25 2008, 04:53 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Aldo Marquis CIT
Jan 25 2008, 04:52 PM
nicepants
Jan 25 2008, 02:55 PM

Again I ask you

"How were you able to rule out the possibility that your NOC witnesses were wrong or mistaken?" The fact that they all agree does not rule out that possibility.



Actually, yes, yes it does.

Do they not also all agree that the plane hit the Pentagon?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

nicepants
Jan 25 2008, 05:14 PM
Do they not also all agree that the plane hit the Pentagon?
Circular logic pseudoskeptic.

Your confirmation bias is showing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

nicepants
Jan 25 2008, 05:14 PM
Aldo Marquis CIT
Jan 25 2008, 04:52 PM
nicepants
Jan 25 2008, 02:55 PM

Again I ask you

"How were you able to rule out the possibility that your NOC witnesses were wrong or mistaken?" The fact that they all agree does not rule out that possibility.



Actually, yes, yes it does.

Do they not also all agree that the plane hit the Pentagon?
Round and round we go.

Watch this Nicepants...

Actually no they don't all agree that the plane hit the Pentagon. Sgt. Brooks admits "anything is possible" when it comes to him being fooled, but he stands by where he saw the plane and the color of the plane.

Do they not also all agree that the plane was on the north side of the Citgo?

Which would they be more right about, Nicepants?

Seeing it on the north side or seeing the impact?

If it is on the north side can the plane still impact the building and cause the damage outlined in the ASCE report?

If it is on the north side can the plane still show up low and level across the lawn like it shows in he gate cam video?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic »
Add Reply