No witness can accurately depict a flight path.

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!

No witness can accurately depict a flight path.; The plane moved too fast.
Topic Started: Feb 4 2008, 04:20 PM (558 Views)
Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 4 2008, 04:20 PM Post #1
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	I'm sure Caustic Logic will be back here in a day or two touting his latest hit-piece underscoring his unhealthy obsession with discrediting us and our work. Our detractors often lament about the fallibility of witness accounts in an effort to downplay the north side testimony. CIT has never denied that eyewitnesses are quite fallible as we have fully understood this fact throughout our investigation. This is exactly why the scientific process of independent corroboration is so important to us. But now that this argument has ran it's course, ironically, CL has decided to go off "bileduct's" cue and surgically parse each word of every witness we present in an effort to cast doubt and twist the information to work with the official flight path even though this is impossible. Let's make one thing crystal clear......CIT has NEVER expected any witness who wasn't directly underneath the plane to be able to relay an accurate flight path. Not even the citgo witnesses. The reason being, due to perspective issues, if the plane was not directly over the top of the witness it would be very difficult to tell the exact location AND heading of the plane that they would have only seen for a second or two. Edward Paik is the only witness we report who placed the plane directly over the top of him with Jamal having it almost directly above him. This put Edward in the BEST position of any reported witness to be able to tell the location and heading of the plane without perspective issues. Particularly since he saw it on the approach coming from the direction of the same neighborhood where Cindy Reyes, Veronica, and Mrs. Hubbard all saw the plane. For anyone else perspective issues would make it EXTREMELY difficult to be able to tell exact location and heading of a plane that they saw for a couple of seconds. The only thing we expected them to be able to do is give an approximate position of the plane in relation to their location. That has nothing to do with a "flight path". We then took each approximate position of the plane from ALL the witnesses and we estimated our own approximate flight path based on that data with the full understanding that there would be a margin of error in each account as well as in our estimation. Yes I had the citgo witnesses draw a flight path but it was merely to get something on paper showing where these critical witnesses place the plane in relation to the station which was the perfect reference point to their vantage as well as the beginning of the physical damage, the light poles. A true make or break situation for the official story. Anyone else further back in the path did not have as critical of a vantage point since they could not see the Pentagon or the citgo at all. Because of this their placement of the plane was not make or break for the official story. All we should logically expect to get from any witness is an approximate location of the plane in relation to the property on which they were standing. We MUST consider perspective issues and speed of the plane would mean that any of them would likely mistake the plane as closer or further away than it really was. None of the "ladies of 13th and Poe" could accurately prove whether the plane could have or could not have caused the physical damage. This is pure and simple common sense that I shouldn't have to explain but the intensified efforts by some to accuse us of "manipulating" the evidence necessitated this response. So here is the synopsis....... Jamal and Edward Paik have the strongest testimony as far as exact placement of the plane without perspective isses because both had a clear unobstructed view of the approach AND both were either virtually or directly underneath the plane. There is no way to reconcile the official flight path with either of their accounts but their accounts are not irreconcilable with the less likely to be accurate 13th and Poe witnesses either. There is a lot of room for error in what we report but there is ZERO room for error in the official flight path due to the NTSB data and the physical damage. Cindy, Veronica, and Mrs. Hubbard did not and could not see the plane on the approach at all and had the worst vantage to be able to accurately tell heading and location. Could their placement of the plane work with the physical damage or even potentially the FDR? Sure! But they must be reconciled with Jamal, Edward, and the NOC witnesses whose accounts can NOT work with the physical damage or the FDR. Plus they all thought the plane was white. Since their placement of the plane does not prove the official story correct OR wrong we found the fact that they all remember the plane as white to be more significant. There is nothing deceptive or manipulative in this. So no matter how hard CL and Bileduct try to pick their testimony apart and expect pinpoint accuracy it doesn't matter. It is a sad desperate effort to dismiss ALL of the data or falsely accuse us of being deceptive. So what is CL's point? He is desperately trying to suggest that the less likely to be accurate placements of the plane by Mrs Hubbard, Veronica, and Cindy support the official story and completely dismiss all of the more likely to be accurate placements of the plane by Jamal, Edward, Brooks, Lagasse, Turcios, and Boger. But it doesn't work that way. You have to reconcile ALL of the evidence. Jamal and Edward gave us the strongest points to establish the flight path and the citgo witnesses combined with the bank over the Navy Annex reported by Sean Boger not only prove them correct but also prove that 9/11 was an inside job. This is an undeniable fact and nothing that any of the "ladies of 13th and Poe" claim contradicts this. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Feb 4 2008, 04:28 PM.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Deleted User	Feb 4 2008, 06:28 PM Post #2
Deleted User	Craig Ranke CIT Feb 4 2008, 04:20 PM I'm sure Caustic Logic will be back here in a day or two touting his latest hit-piece underscoring his unhealthy obsession with discrediting us and our work. I like how you're so concerned with my health. That makes me feel all fuzzy and healthier already. Quote: Our detractors often lament that you've made it entirely too easy to debunk your 'findings.' You give us too much to work with and try to make up for it with twisty semantics, appeals to truthiness, distracting bluster and defensive belligerence. Witnesses see flight paths. But Most aren't used to the kind of perspective issues involved, they don't know true size. The might see a big plane from a great distance and think it's a little plane close up. but they can see it here - then here - they can see what angle they're seeing it from - if the wings are tilted. Some basic design features. Color, sure. speed. direction, very important when you're trying to draw a flight path. So, considering your second video "Flight 77" The White Plan" has no reports of turns or banks, no clear reports of a northern sweep, heading clues trending towards 60 deg real, 13th and Poe witnesses themselves in a perfect spot to to see the plane south of the Annex, Jamal perhaps seeing the plane further away behind those trees and approaching for even longer then he remmebers before passing 1/2 mile north of 'over that tree?' This is dangerous stuff, I know, but the main problem for flight path witnesses, that gave you both Edward and Jamal IMO, is perspective and its effect on placement of the path one north, one way south, both on about the official heading. And that's interesting because you say: Quote: Edward Paik is the only witness we report who placed the plane directly over the top of him with Jamal having it almost directly above him. Yep. So now we gotta have that northward swoop to connect them that no one saw. You challeneged us to "draw a line from where Jamal saw the plane to where the citgo witnesses saw the plane. […] Think of all of their placements as being approximate and create the best estimation you can using ALL of their accounts. Go ahead, do it and show me what you come up with.” You're aware of the need for an east-shift to account for Mrs. Hubbard, correct? Quote: This put Edward in the BEST position of any reported witness to be able to tell the location and heading of the plane without perspective issues. Particularly since he saw it on the approach coming from the direction of the same neighborhood where Cindy Reyes, Veronica, and Mrs. Hubbard all saw the plane. Did he mention a sharp turn, or a steep right-wing low bank? Seems he'd be in a good spot to see that too. Thanks for spelling out your policy of using your witnesses just as locators, dots on a line you're going to draw yourself. Problem is in my old job as a 'research assistant,' this would be called falsifying data. You have presented a flight path you've described as “the flight path that has been getting established for us by the people of Arlington.” The people of Arlington each saw a flight path and you ignored their testimony and drew your own. That's it. I'm not arguing the point from here. Dismantle this as you see fit at your own leisure and carry on. Looks like you're back in the game in a bag way and congrats. You got your old forum back.
Deleted User


Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 4 2008, 06:54 PM Post #3
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	So what is CL's point? He is desperately trying to suggest that the less likely to be accurate placements of the plane by Mrs Hubbard, Veronica, and Cindy support the official story and completely dismiss all of the more likely to be accurate placements of the plane by Jamal, Edward, Brooks, Lagasse, Turcios, and Boger. But it doesn't work that way. You have to reconcile ALL of the evidence. Jamal and Edward gave us the strongest points to establish the flight path and the citgo witnesses combined with the bank over the Navy Annex reported by Sean Boger not only prove them correct but also prove that 9/11 was an inside job. This is an undeniable fact and nothing that any of the "ladies of 13th and Poe" claim contradicts this.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 4 2008, 07:34 PM Post #4
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	CL, Do you believe that Jamal saw the plane?
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 13 2008, 09:45 PM Post #5
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	We must judge the veracity of witness accounts depending on primarily the quality of their POV. It is clear that since both Edward and Jamal were outside and had a clear view of the plane on the approach AND the fact that they place the plane directly over them that they are much better witnesses than Cindy or Mrs. Hubbard who were in their homes, did not see the plane on the approach at all and therefore had perspective issues. Does that mean we should completely dismiss their accounts? Of course not! It means we need to scrutinize these details and use them in conjunction with other witnesses to get a clearer picture about where the plane flew. This is what we have done. It's called true investigative reporting using scientific principles by considering ALL the evidence in context. No single eyewitness account is 100% infallible and there is no legitimate reason to 100% dismiss any of the accounts we present in "Flight 77" The White Plane. So bileduct..... Do you believe Jamal saw the plane at all? Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Feb 13 2008, 09:46 PM.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


bileduct	Feb 13 2008, 09:59 PM Post #6
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08	Craig Ranke CIT Feb 13 2008, 09:45 PM We must judge the veracity of witness accounts depending on primarily the quality of their POV. It is clear that since both Edward and Jamal were outside and had a clear view of the plane on the approach AND the fact that they place the plane directly over them that they are much better witnesses than Cindy or Mrs. Hubbard who were in their homes, did not see the plane on the approach at all and therefore had perspective issues. Does that mean we should completely dismiss their accounts? Of course not! It means we need to scrutinize these details and use them in conjunction with other witnesses to get a clearer picture about where the plane flew. This is what we have done. It's called true investigative reporting using scientific principles by considering ALL the evidence in context. No single eyewitness account is 100% infallible and there is no legitimate reason to 100% dismiss any of the accounts we present in "Flight 77" The White Plane. So bileduct..... Do you believe Jamal saw the plane at all? I have no reason to believe that he didn't. Do you think Mrs. Hubbard saw the plane, Craig? If so, why have you put it in a position where she could not have possibly seen it? Finally, Jamal did not put the plane directly overhead. You have fabricated this, much the same as you have fabricated the flight path based on the accounts of Hubbard, Cindy and Veronica.
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 13 2008, 10:11 PM Post #7
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	bileduct Feb 13 2008, 09:59 PM I have no reason to believe that he didn't. Do you think Mrs. Hubbard saw the plane, Craig? If so, why have you put it in a position where she could not have possibly seen it? Finally, Jamal did not put the plane directly overhead. You have fabricated this, much the same as you have fabricated the flight path based on the accounts of Hubbard, Cindy and Veronica. If you believe that Jamal saw the plane you believe the FDR is fraudulent and the official flight path is incorrect. I have repeatedly said that Edward places the plane directly over the top of him and that Jamal almost does but they BOTH had a clear view of the plane on the approach which makes both of them infinitely better witnesses to the exact location and heading of the plane than Cindy, Mrs. Hubbard, and Veronica. Why would you say that Mrs. Hubbard couldn't possibly have seen it? That is absurd. You can see the Sheraton from her front porch. You see the problem is that you are attacking us for a claim that we have never made. We have never cited Mrs. Hubbard, Cindy, Veronica, or ANY single witness as being valid witnesses for any "flight path". It would be unreasonable to expect that out of them. However Edward is the by far the best witness for this because the plane was directly over him AND he saw it on the approach coming from the same neighborhood where Cindy and Mrs. Hubbard saw the plane which corroborates their accounts. In general; we only expected the witnesses to give us an approximate position of the plane in relation to their location. That of course that is a perfectly reasonable expectation on our part. I'm glad to hear that you at least can admit that the FDR is fraudulent. It will be great to have you help us make sure others are aware of this important fatal contradiction in the official story.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


bileduct	Feb 13 2008, 10:15 PM Post #8
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08	Craig Ranke CIT Feb 13 2008, 10:11 PM You can see the Sheraton from her front porch. Again, further proof of your deliberate deception. Mrs. Hubbard was in her den, inside her house when she saw the plane, looking through a window that faces eastward. She was not on her front porch looking to the north and you KNOW THIS.
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 13 2008, 10:20 PM Post #9
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	bileduct Feb 13 2008, 10:15 PM Craig Ranke CIT Feb 13 2008, 10:11 PM You can see the Sheraton from her front porch. Again, further proof of your deliberate deception. Mrs. Hubbard was in her den, inside her house when she saw the plane, looking through a window that faces eastward. She was not on her front porch looking to the north and you KNOW THIS. Huh? Humans do not have linear vision. OF COURSE you can see the Sheraton from her front window if you look north. Perhaps that is exactly the direction her chair faces. I believe that she is honest and saw the plane. I do not believe that she is a valid witness to the flight path or exact location of the plane. It's clear that physically Edward and Jamal would be infinitely better witnesses to this so unless you choose to write them off as liars you must reconcile Mrs. Hubbard's account with theirs. You already said you believe Jamal saw the plane therefore there is really nothing to argue here. You agree that their accounts prove 9/11 was an inside job.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


bileduct	Feb 13 2008, 10:31 PM Post #10
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08	Quote: OF COURSE you can see the Sheraton from her front window if you look north. From her den window facing eastward? No you can't. You are lying. Quote: Perhaps that is exactly the direction her chair faces. Perhaps? So you are deducing now? Weren't you there? Don't you know for sure? Are you lying again? Quote: You agree that their accounts prove 9/11 was an inside job. I'm beginning to understand how you are able to concoct your fanastic theories by jumping to conclusions so easily. I agreed to no such thing. Yet again you are lying. Edited by bileduct, Feb 13 2008, 10:32 PM.
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 13 2008, 10:53 PM Post #11
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	If you believe Jamal saw the plane at all you have admitted the FDR is fraudulent. Just because her window faces east it does not mean she can only see east. That is not how real life works. Here is a shot from in front of her house: I have no doubt whatsoever that she can see the Sheraton from her front window if she was looking north. I also have no doubt that she saw the plane. Of course there is no reason to expect her to be able to perfectly place it on ANY exact flight path due to perception issues. This is not deceptive on our part. It is logic and reason when analyzing witness accounts vs. POV which is what we have done for dozens and dozens of witnesses. Many have been proven to be liars this way but not Mrs. Hubbard. But you must reconcile Mrs. Hubbard's account with Jamal's if you believe Jamal saw the plane. There is no way around it. Same goes for Edward Paik. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Feb 13 2008, 10:54 PM.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 13 2008, 10:58 PM Post #12
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Oh and I was never in her home so no I do not know which way her chair faces. In fact if you call me a liar again I will report you for breaking the rules. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Feb 13 2008, 11:00 PM.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


bileduct	Feb 13 2008, 11:03 PM Post #13
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08	Can you please confirm that you took this photo on the same day you interviewed Mrs. Hubbard. Do you have any other photos of Mrs. Hubbard's home or it's surroundings while we're on the subject? Quote: If you believe Jamal saw the plane at all you have admitted the FDR is fraudulent. Sorry, but no I haven't. I have no doubt at all that Jamal could have seen the plane on a trajectory matching the official flight path. Quote: But you must reconcile Mrs. Hubbard's account with Jamal's if you believe Jamal saw the plane. There is no way around it. No, I don't. I have not seen a single shred of evidence that Jamal's account is infallable. Particularly when his account is delivered some five years after the fact. Edited by bileduct, Feb 13 2008, 11:04 PM.
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 13 2008, 11:10 PM Post #14
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	I didn't take the image. I had someone do it recently because I didn't have any. Quote: No, I don't. I have not seen a single shred of evidence that Jamal's account is infallable. Particularly when his account is delivered some five years after the fact. It doesn't have to be infallible. He would not have seen the plane on the official flight path at all let alone flyover the driving range as he described. You really need to go there.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


bileduct	Feb 13 2008, 11:20 PM Post #15
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08	Craig Ranke CIT Feb 13 2008, 11:10 PM I didn't take the image. I had someone do it recently because I didn't have any. Ok, I'll play your game for a moment... Now that we have established that this photo accurately represents the direction that Mrs. Hubbard was looking, can you please pinpoint the locations she described, most notably the house with the umbrella and the big house that the plane flew between, as well as the trees that the plane had to pull up to get over? Thanks.
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 13 2008, 11:35 PM Post #16
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	bileduct Feb 13 2008, 11:20 PM Now that we have established that this photo accurately represents the direction that Mrs. Hubbard was looking, can you please pinpoint the locations she described, most notably the house with the umbrella and the big house that the plane flew between, as well as the trees that the plane had to pull up to get over? Thanks. Huh? Who ever said this image accurately represents the exact direction that she was looking? It's in front of her house....not in it. She would have seen it for about one second from inside her house. Be logical. What you don't get is that it is not reasonable to expect her to be accurate about the exact location of the plane. I don't expect that from any witness although some are more likely to be accurate than others due to perspective and how well they saw the plane on the approach. You see how perspective makes it look like the Sheraton is right there. You stare at google satellite maps all day and have no clue what real people can see. Parse her words and try to cast doubt all you want or discredit her all you want. Dismiss her account that the plane is white for all I care. It really is irrelevant compared to all the other evidence we have. The plane came from east of the Potomac and flew north of the citgo. There is no way you can deny this and it proves that 9/11 was an inside job REGARDLESS of what you choose to believe or not believe about Mrs. Hubbard.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


bileduct	Feb 13 2008, 11:48 PM Post #17
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08	Craig Ranke CIT Feb 13 2008, 11:35 PM bileduct Feb 13 2008, 11:20 PM Now that we have established that this photo accurately represents the direction that Mrs. Hubbard was looking, can you please pinpoint the locations she described, most notably the house with the umbrella and the big house that the plane flew between, as well as the trees that the plane had to pull up to get over? Thanks. Huh? Who ever said this image accurately represents the exact direction that she was looking? Oh, so she was not looking to the north then?
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 13 2008, 11:54 PM Post #18
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	bileduct Feb 13 2008, 11:48 PM Oh, so she was not looking to the north then? I have no idea the exact direction. Perhaps it was part north part east. Human eyesight is not directionally linear or fixated. Eyes move! Did you know that? In fact they move fast too. But it doesn't really matter how accurate or inaccurate Mrs. Hubbard's account is because she does NOT contradict the north of the citgo OR east of the potomac claims which is the evidence we have proving 9/11 was an inside job. Mrs. Hubbard is not proof that 9/11 was an inside job and we have never stated that she was. We only point out how she supports the heavily corroborated white claim. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Feb 13 2008, 11:55 PM.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


bileduct	Feb 14 2008, 12:31 AM Post #19
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08	Craig Ranke CIT Feb 13 2008, 11:54 PM bileduct Feb 13 2008, 11:48 PM Oh, so she was not looking to the north then? I have no idea the exact direction. Perhaps it was part north part east. You are lying. Again. You were with her when she described the plane moving between the house with the umbrella and the big house. You were there when she told you the plane pulled up to avoid hitting some trees. You know exactly what direction she was looking because she told you in great detail, but you refuse to acknowledge the directions she gave you because you know they are irreconcilable with your ridiculous flyover theory.
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08


bileduct	Feb 14 2008, 12:36 AM Post #20
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08	Craig Ranke CIT Feb 13 2008, 11:54 PM We only point out how she supports the heavily corroborated white claim. Heavily corroborated my ass. Three of your four star NOC witnesses say the plane was anything but white, and your fourth believes it was a United Airlines jet with a paint scheme that wasn't in place until 2004.
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 14 2008, 12:52 AM Post #21
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	White plane witnesses: Jamal, Mrs. Hubbard, Cindy, Veronica, Sgt Brooks, Allan Wallace, Dawn Vignola, Omar Campos. That's 8. I'm pretty sure there are more too. How many would it take before your "ass" would consider it heavily corroborated? Please give me an exact number and explain why 8 is not enough.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


bileduct	Feb 14 2008, 01:23 AM Post #22
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08	Craig Ranke CIT Feb 14 2008, 12:52 AM White plane witnesses: Jamal, Mrs. Hubbard, Cindy, Veronica, Sgt Brooks, Allan Wallace, Dawn Vignola, Omar Campos. That's 8. I'm pretty sure there are more too. How many would it take before your "ass" would consider it heavily corroborated? Please give me an exact number and explain why 8 is not enough. How about, let's say... 30. You know, like the number of people that even CIT admit actually saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Oh wait, that's right, precision perfectly executed military sleight of hand.. Yeah yeah, I get it.
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08


Bitterman	Feb 14 2008, 01:46 AM Post #23
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08	bileduct Feb 14 2008, 01:23 AM Craig Ranke CIT Feb 14 2008, 12:52 AM White plane witnesses: Jamal, Mrs. Hubbard, Cindy, Veronica, Sgt Brooks, Allan Wallace, Dawn Vignola, Omar Campos. That's 8. I'm pretty sure there are more too. How many would it take before your "ass" would consider it heavily corroborated? Please give me an exact number and explain why 8 is not enough. How about, let's say... 30. You know, like the number of people that even CIT admit actually saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Oh wait, that's right, precision perfectly executed military sleight of hand.. Yeah yeah, I get it. Hey Bile, CIT has never said they admit they have 30 fricking people that ACTUALLY SAW THE PLANE IMPACT THE BUILDING. If that was true.....I think you would have us beat. Instead.....you have NOTHING in terms of solid proof. See, I can't possibly take anything you say seriously because CIT has gone out and done the hard work, and you have.....your IMAGINATION! I used to be so uptight when it comes to posting this stuff versus one of you guys....but.....it's F*CKING laughable now! I laugh at you......I cry with joy because that's all you got........BS, speculation, imagination......and slander. The only thing left is to keep crushing you via debate, because it worth having at least 1 person read these forums and actually read that you're actively spreading dis-info. In the face of this evidence......I don't know why you bother. That's why we have you.
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08


bileduct	Feb 14 2008, 01:53 AM Post #24
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08	Bitterman Feb 14 2008, 01:46 AM Hey Bile, CIT has never said they admit they have 30 fricking people that ACTUALLY SAW THE PLANE IMPACT THE BUILDING. If that was true.....I think you would have us beat. Instead.....you have NOTHING in terms of solid proof. See, I can't possibly take anything you say seriously because CIT has gone out and done the hard work, and you have.....your IMAGINATION! I used to be so uptight when it comes to posting this stuff versus one of you guys....but.....it's FCKING laughable now! I laugh at you......I cry with joy because that's all you got........BS, speculation, imagination......and slander. The only thing left is to keep crushing you via debate, because it worth having at least 1 person read these forums and actually read that you're actively spreading dis-info. In the face of this evidence......I don't know why you bother. That's why we have you. CIT's list of witnesses, as posted here http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82 Claims they "Saw" impact of "plane"/large airliner-were in a position to possibly confirm one: 1. Deb Anlauf (CONTACTED by CIT, would not return call) 2. Donald Bouchoux (military consultant. CONTACTED by CIT, would not return call) 3. Mike Walter (had dinner with CIT) 4. Sean Boger (CONFIRMED the north side, impact deduced we believe) 5. Pam Bradley (unconfirmed account/witness) 6. Hugh "Tim" Timmerman (Dawn Vignola's roomate, unavailable for comment) 7. James R. Cissell 8. Daryl Donley 9. Bobby Eberle (came forward well after the event, Jeff Gannon's boss) 10. Penny Elgas 11. Mary Ann Owens 12. Scott Perry 13. Frank Probst (CONTACTED/INTERVIEWED by CIT) Noel Sepulveda, Navy Master Sgt. 14. G. T. Stanley (unconfirmed name/witness) 15. Steve Storti 16. Carla Thompson (unconfirmed name/witness) 17. Dave Winslow, AP Radio reporter (CONTACTED by CIT, did not return call) 18. Terrance Kean (Unreachable) 19. Dave Marra (dubious, questionable witness-claims plane cartwheeled into 20. building) 20. Mark Petitt (VERY dubious account) 21. Aziz El Hallou (Debunked lying witness, proven to be at Navy Annex) 22. Robert A Leonard(driving northbound in the HOV lanes on I-395; Pentagon is on the left. The plane vanished, absorbed by the building, and there was a slight pause. Then a huge fireball rose into the sky.") 23. Mitch Mitchell, Ret. Army Col., CBS news correspondent (account is problematic) 24. Mike Dobbs (according to writer, not confirmed, not his own words) 25. Joe Harrington (seems like it made impact before Wedge-in South Parking lot) 26. Rick Renzi (corrupt congressman, listed as law student, has plane "dive bombing", very peculiar account) "Saw" a plane & impact from far away, but DID NOT see a second plane/jet shadowing/chasing and veering away as the impact happened: 27. Steve Anderson, USA Today Editor (saw impact from USA Today building) Don Wright (a commuter plane, two-engined ) Don Chauncey (small commuter plane) Steve Gerard (saw small corporate jet with no markings) (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT) 28. Lesley Kelly, Cmdr. U.S. Navy (Ret.) (near impossible to see the plane approach from DC) 29. James Robbins (a national-security analyst & NRO contributor for National Review, William F Buckley (CIA) publication saw silver flash, "diving in an unrecoverable angle") Ken Ford (prop plane flying up river from National) 30.Christopher Munsey, Navy Times reporter (30 TOTAL WHO COULD HAVE SEEN OR CLAIM TO HAVE SEEN IMPACT) This list does not include Sgt. Brooks and Sgt. Lagasse, both of which also claim to have seen an impact. Add those two and the non-numbered persons in the list and we have 37 CIT compiled witness accounts of a plane hitting the Pentagon. 0 reports of a flyover. 0 reports of white vans distributing broken light poles. Thankyou for playing. Edited by bileduct*, Feb 14 2008, 01:56 AM.
Posts: 152 Group: BANNED! Member #113 Joined: 01/17/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 14 2008, 01:59 AM Post #25
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	bileduct Feb 14 2008, 01:23 AM Oh wait, that's right, precision perfectly executed military sleight of hand.. Yeah yeah, I get it. Yep, you got it. Think of it in context of the crime and it's not so many is it? And Bitterman is right.....we don't suggest there are 30 people who did see it. We simply state that out of the finite number of unconfirmed previously published witness accounts it would only be physically possible for about 30 to see the alleged impact. And when you look closely at those 30 there are a lot of dubious details and strange coincidences. Plus independent previously unknown accounts hold infinitely more weight in context of the crime we are investigating. We have enough evidence to prove a deception, Between the NOC and the EOP evidence the offical story is done.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


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


« Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic »