| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Lincoln Leibner: NoC flighpath?; But Domenick wanted to change the topic. | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Aug 23 2008, 09:26 PM (1,270 Views) | |
| Stinkey Puh | Aug 23 2008, 09:26 PM Post #1 |
|
Check out Biscuit Cough's findings (he posted it on ATS):
What do you think?  Notice too that just before he indicates the fligh path, it looks like he points to where he was located when he saw the "impact" -- it certainly looks like he is pointing in the Lane 1 area, doesn't it? 
Edited by Stinkey Puh, Aug 29 2008, 06:00 PM.
|
 |
 
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Aug 24 2008, 11:02 PM Post #2 |
|
why do you speak of biscuit cough as if he was someone other than yourself? |
|
|
|
| Stinkey Puh | Aug 25 2008, 06:25 AM Post #3 |
|
Simply because. . . he is!
|
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Aug 25 2008, 03:40 PM Post #4 |
|
oh really? is there only 1 computer in huntley and you both have to share it?
|
|
|
|
| Stinkey Puh | Aug 25 2008, 09:21 PM Post #5 |
|
Yeah really. Kind of like the 1 computer in California that Craig and Aldo have to share? I'm not sure how any of that is relevant to the topic though. 
|
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Aug 25 2008, 09:40 PM Post #6 |
|
We have real names. We have publicly known faces. We acknowledge the implications of evidence. You and your alter-ego/sidekick have none of the above and dedicate your posts to splitting hairs against the claims of CIT as opposed to contributing to the information war constructively. Chew on that a bit. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Aug 25 2008, 11:45 PM Post #7 |
|
oh so you guys work together at the same place is your new claim? you are aware that companies can have thousands of computers on 1 ip address because all those computers are located inside the same building, right? craig & aldo also appear in videos and use their names so we can determine they are definitely two different individuals.
well if the poster is already being deceptive then they and their presentations should be viewed under a magnifying glass and any intentional attempts to deceive should be publicized loud and often. obviously if the person is already proven to be operating deceptively they have alternative motives for what information they are trying to present to others [who don't know that information about their source]. so i'm calling bullshits on it. |
|
|
|
| Stinkey Puh | Aug 29 2008, 10:24 PM Post #8 |
|
*Crunch* *Crunch* *Crunch*
Actually, Craig, BC and I have real names too. As to publicly known faces, why does that matter? You say you acknowledge the implications of evidence, and I think we pretty much do too -- as long as they truly are implications. Can you show where either of us has denied something when the evidence backs it?
That is quite false, actually. Unless someone at the CIT forum has deleted my or Biscuit Cough's posts, anyone should be able to see that our posts have not been "dedicated" against CIT. CIT has been hostile to BC from the beginning, labeling him a "pseudoskeptic" and accusing him of being deceptive. As to contributing constructively, I believe it was Biscuit Cough that put together a fairly accurate table (to my knowledge at least) of Pentagon witnesses CIT has focused on. I'd say it provides a pretty good overview of important witnesses and some key information about them. I believe Biscuit Cough was one of the first to go through the trouble of transcribing (quite accurately, I'd say) CIT's interview with Roosevelt Roberts, making it much easier to find and review important specifics. It is rather useful. And unless I'm mistaken, Biscuit Cough has been one of the researchers attempting to obtain a better understanding of where Roosevelt Roberts saw the "second" jet, as opposed to misinterpreting what he said and trying to make his testimony seem vague and uncertain with statements like, "we are unclear as to what lane 1 is to him [Roosevelt Roberts]" (quote from Aldo Marquis). So I think Biscuit Cough has actually made some contributions. I agree with your wording above -- "the claims of CIT." As you might notice, we've never disagreed with NoC -- I don't believe it's a theory because the evidence clearly supports it. You seem to attempt to dismiss our arguments by saying we're "splitting hairs" against CIT when we scrutinize claims for which CIT has not presented supporting evidence. It's starting to look like you do not have the evidence to back some of the claims.
"New claim"? No, I'm not claiming that.
Uh. . . (let's see, ) You are aware that multiple people can have multiple computers on 1 IP address because all those computers are connected to the same network, right? 
Craig and Aldo also gather information from people and use it behind their backs (afaik) in an apparent attempt to portray those people as dishonest liars (I'm refering to what has been done with Joel Sucherman, Steven McGraw, Keith Wheelhouse, etc.). Why would Biscuit Cough or I give them our information to use in any such manner?
So instead of addressing the topic presented, you appear to have decided to focus on us personally. . . interesting tactic for someone in the Citizen Investigation Team, I'd venture. As long as we're off topic. . . Who are you saying is being deceptive, Dom? Consider. . . CIT is the one that suspended both Biscuit Cough and Stinkey Puh from their forum, giving the excuse that we both have the same IP (even though Craig was already informed of that and the reason why). Oddly enough, this action came shortly after BC presented his preliminary transcript of the Roosevelt Roberts interview. In his message (on the forum), Aldo gave us the email address by which to contact them to let them know "what is going on", but I got no response to repeated emails on the subject. The suspension was apparently followed by an IP ban. What's the point here? Well, the effect is that we cannot use the forum (except from another IP), but the forum viewers do not know this. To the casual CIT forum viewer, it merely looks as though Stinkey Puh and Biscuit Cough (and Craig and Aldo probably know how many others) just decided to stop posting for whatever reason. The username is not listed as unregistered or banned, but the effect is similar. I'm guessing most viewers do not know that CIT has essentially banned us -- so the image that CIT is open to reasonable discussion is still preserved. Wild conspiracy theory? Maybe not.  Finally, Craig responded to my email, saying he had been gone and just got back (which we already knew); but he apparently stood behind Aldo's decisions. So here's a question or two to "chew on": 1. Why did Aldo give us an email address which he either did not check or he decided not to respond to when I emailed? What's the point in giving the address if you have no intention of responding? 2. Why did CIT put a "transparent" ban on Biscuit Cough and Stinkey Puh (thereby making it look as if we are not banned when in fact we practically are) when we disagreed with them, persisting in examining and discussing what they say and what they present and pointing out that some of their claims are not supported by the evidence (Craig calls it "splitting hairs")? So yeah, maybe someone is being deceptive. Edited by Stinkey Puh, Aug 29 2008, 10:41 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Aug 30 2008, 01:05 AM Post #9 |
|
You dedicate your posts to splitting hairs AGAINST the implications of NoC. If the plane flew NoC A LOT of people are implicated as lying. Do you agree? If so please list the people YOU believe as being implicated. If not please indicate how or why you could think that all alleged witnesses were honest or how the operation could have been pulled off without any operatives or assets. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Aug 30 2008, 01:08 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Stinkey Puh | Aug 30 2008, 08:35 AM Post #10 |
|
Perhaps. 
I'm thinking the people who can be shown conclusively to be lying are the ones I might suspect of being involved in the crime.
I don't think I need to post a theory as to how I think it all worked.
Edited by Stinkey Puh, Aug 30 2008, 08:38 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Aug 30 2008, 11:25 AM Post #11 |
|
And out of the published witness list who MIGHT you SUSPECT that would be? Names please. |
|
|
|
| Stinkey Puh | Aug 30 2008, 11:59 AM Post #12 |
|
I don't have a list of "suspect" witnesses. Why does it matter? Does certain eyewitness testimony simply disagree with what you (CIT) think happened or with what you (CIT) think is possible, so you claim those witnesses are dishonest? If not, it seems you should be able to present the basis on which you make claims that they are dishonest/deceptive/lying/accomplices, etc. |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Aug 30 2008, 03:59 PM Post #13 |
|
Because you are insisting on us giving you one or committing to a table created by biscuit cough. If you believe NoC you must believe that some witnesses were involved. There is no way around it. If you are not willing to state who you suspect of this then you have no place asking us to do the same. Since of course you agree that some witnesses had to have been involved you would serve as a more productive member of the truth movement by trying to figure out who those are rather than concentrating on what CIT says. Why are you more concerned with who we think may have been involved rather than spreading the word about the north side approach that proves a military deception?
What we "think happened" is irrelevant. You should look at what witnesses are implicated by the NoC evidence that you have said YOU believe. So who do you think that might be? You don't have to worry....after all they aren't going to sue stinkey poo. |
|
|
|
| SPreston | Aug 30 2008, 05:05 PM Post #14 |
Patriotic American
|
Biscuit Cough and Stinkey Puh are your real names? Your mothers must have really hated you. |
|
|
|
| Stinkey Puh | Aug 30 2008, 07:33 PM Post #15 |
|
No we are not.
Why do you think some of the witnesses had to have been involved?
Yeah, well I haven't, and I don't think Biscuit Cough has either.
Why does it matter?
I don't have a list of "suspect" witnesses. Why does it matter? I'm not the one portraying certain witnesses as dishonest without evidence to back up my claims. After all, what evidence is there that any of the witnesses are lying?
Edited by Stinkey Puh, Aug 30 2008, 07:36 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Aug 31 2008, 12:25 PM Post #16 |
|
If you believe NoC, you believe the plane flew over. If you believe the plane flew over without a single operative or asset being used to sell the official story to the media then it's clear you are one very dopey human or simply being intellectually dishonest. Either way it's clear that discussing it further with you is utterly pointless.
NoC is evidence. You said you believe it. It proves a flyover and it proves some alleged witnesses lied. There is no way around it stink. Attacking CIT does not change the implications of the evidence that you said you believe. If you really believe NoC....go do something about. Call a congressman or something because you aren't helping to expose the military deception by constantly challenging us. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Aug 31 2008, 02:00 PM Post #17 |
|
so is stinkey cough of the impression that since some witnesses 'must be involved' then there is a cover up taking place and the official story is therefor not true? |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Aug 31 2008, 04:08 PM Post #18 |
|
No. He is refusing to admit that some witnesses are implicated by the NoC evidence as deliberately lying to support the official story. So he claims he believes NoC....but that it's possible for all previously published alleged witnesses who were used in the propaganda to sell the 757 impact to still be completely innocent. |
|
|
|
| streetcar304 | Aug 31 2008, 05:05 PM Post #19 |
|
Interesting. You are asking people to believe, with no evidence or witnesses, that the aircraft "flew over" the Pentagon. Roberts is not a witness, unless you can prove that the aircraft - any aircraft, whatever type you'd like to speculate (according to Roberts, it was a "commercial aircraft", so you can't be too selective) - could make it from a north of the gas station flight path to flying over the south parking lot, lane 1, at 50-100 feet, which would be a maneuver, I'd submit, that is as near to impossible as any aeronautical maneuver can be. I would recommend you run that by Captain Bob for verification purposes, however. Roberts also said he was certain there were two aircraft:
So we have TWO aircraft doing fly overs - one flying north of the gas station and the other, the one Roberts claimed to see. So again, you are asking people to believe two aircraft flew over the building, with no witnesses or evidence of such aside from Roberts testimony. Or, if there was only one aircraft, Roberts erred in his comments to you, and there was only one aircraft that flew over the building, and you have only the comments from Roberts, who has other significantly erroneous testimony in his comments (he claims two aircraft), something judges and juries don't like to hear. Or, Roberts is full of it (or simply mistaken), only one aircraft flew into the area, flew north of the gas station and flew over the north side of the building, and you still have no witnesses or evidence of such an occurrence. Does that about sum it up? So far? To make it easy, is it: A) One aircraft flew north of the gas station, made an aerodynamically impossible bank maneuver and flew over the south parking lot at 50-100 feet and Roberts was wrong in his assertion that there were 2 aircraft. B) One aircraft flew north of the gas station and over flew over the north side of the building and Roberts is mistaken in his testimony. C) There were 2 aircraft that flew into the area, one north of the gas station and one over south parking lot at 50-100 feet, both of them flying over (or by) the building. Pick 'em. Or, if you like, any combination of the 3. |
|
|
|
| Bitterman | Aug 31 2008, 05:44 PM Post #20 |
|
So if you're OK with the plane being NoC, and it obviously didn't crash and cause the light poles to come down, where else is that plane gonna go?? It didn't leave any wreckage, just the sound of it flying by. So Roosevelt knows he saw a plane that day over the parking lot. He may be incorrect in his details or mistaken or whatever. The point is he saw a plane flying away from the building right after the explosion. What other plane is it gonna be!??! You have already proven the official story FALSE, and you're worrying about exactly where and in what angle of blah, blah, blah......and if it isn't all perfect and has every bit of information provided to you on a silver platter, the story CANNOT be true right? Details can be fuzzy, but he saw that plane. That's all that's needed. Suck it up. Only one plane, it flew over and away. Explosives take out the portion of the pentagon that lines up perfectly with a SOUTH of CITGO approach. That approach wasn't exactly duplicated as they needed, but their official story was already written for them, they had to stick with a GUARANTEED, PROVABLE LIE/DECEPTION. They made their bed and they have to sleep in it. If something hasn't gone click by now.............good luck with that. Things are going to change with or without you. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Aug 31 2008, 05:48 PM Post #21 |
|
don't get dizzy spinning man of a thousand usernames.......... they're the same plane. |
|
|
|
| streetcar304 | Aug 31 2008, 07:09 PM Post #22 |
|
Ahhhh....ok! Great! We have a definitive scenario now. At least we do from Bitterman. One aircraft (exact type unknown other than a "commercial aircraft", but confirmed to be a Boeing 757 by Officer Lagasse), on an approach flight path that take it north of the gas station (its approach to that north of the gas station position is unknown, but it has been suggested it is either directly over the Annex, diagonally from southwest to northeast over the Annex, on the north side of the Annex, or coming from the north over Arlington National Cemetery), at an undetermined speed (SPreston used 784.8 feet per second in this post, so we'll go with that), meaning it would take the aircraft 2.67 seconds to travel from the 5th wing of the Annex (where Morin said he saw the aircraft) to the area in the vicinity of light pole 1 (again, thanks to SPreston from the same above referenced post for his analysis), which would be required for a south parking lot over flight (to match Officer Robert's account of "over lane 1"), transitioning from an estimated altitude of 100 feet AGL over the annex (Terry Morin's estimate), down the grade towards the Pentagon, passing over Officer Lagasse at an estimated 100 feet AGL, and descending to "less than 100 feet" or 50 feet, according to Officer Roberts, as it crossed over the south parking lot. I know it is merely "details", but I'm curious....how can a "commercial aircraft" at 100 feet altitude above the ground, traveling at 784 feet per second, make the required banking turns necessary to go from north of the gas station to over the south parking lot when its wingspan is greater than its altitude? I'm afraid "That's all that's needed!" doesn't answer the question. |
|
|
|
| streetcar304 | Aug 31 2008, 07:12 PM Post #23 |
|
I think we're getting a consensus! Same question: How can a "commercial aircraft" at 100 feet altitude above the ground, traveling at 784 feet per second, make the required banking turns necessary to go from north of the gas station to over the south parking lot when its wingspan is greater than its altitude? |
|
|
|
| Stinkey Puh | Sep 1 2008, 10:52 AM Post #24 |
|
That doesn't sound like evidence that any of the witnesses had to have been involved. Oh well, I don't think I started this discussion anyway.
How?
That's right. It's based off the evidence (eyewitness testimony in this case).
How does NoC prove a flyover? The witnesses say it impacted.
Attacking Biscuit Cough and Stinkey Puh does not change the implications of the evidence either.
Who is "stinkey cough"? 
It appears CIT is refusing to provide the evidence that any of the witnesses have to be lying.
I'm not sure about your speed there, but as to the direction it was heading when Roosevelt saw it. . .
So it seems if a Pentagon flyover occured, the plane would have flown NoC, then over the impact point, and then about 10 seconds later (because Roosevelt says it was "ten seconds tops" from when he heard the explosion to when he saw the plane) it was flying away from the Pentagon over the South Parking Lot Lane 1 area, southwest, and across Rt 27. Very interesting. Thanks to CIT for the interview, btw. |
|
|
|
| streetcar304 | Sep 1 2008, 11:42 AM Post #25 |
|
Good point. I was giving the CIT Boys the benefit of the doubt by not bringing up Robert's comments and descriptions of where the aircraft came from...or was headed. I didn't want to muddle up an already muddled situation. As far as the speed is concerned (784 feet per second, or 534 mph), I obtained that from a post by SPreston, so a tip o' the hat goes to that individual for helping out with the speed. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
7:43 AM Nov 9
