8 out of 8 at Citgo station

Childlike Empress said:
And so you thought you could omit what he stated later? To trick me? Or were you "quite sure" that he closely followed what the plane did because YOU haven't watched "NSA" but derive your knowledge of the issue from secondary sources alone? Which one is it?

And I asked you for evidence for your other earlier allegations, not for a lenghty argument from incredulity.

last post: I am refering to more than a dozen witnesses who were contacted by CIT after being on official record as witnesses, invited on scene and asked to clarify the statements they made in 2001. They independently and unanimously describe a flight path so different from the official one, that a plane approaching on this path couldn't cause the physical damage. They were (if they aren't acting) not aware of the implications of what they had seen, they simply told their story.

That's the problem and that's the evidence: corroborated witness testimony. If you have a better theory than "flyover" to explain the evidence, go ahead.

If you don't accept the evidence, you must explain it away. Caustic Logic says that the witnesses are in on it. Remember, most of them were on official record since 2001.

So, what's your opinion?

1) The witnesses are all mistaken in the same bizarre way.
2) They are actors payed by CIT to pose as the real on record witnesses.
3) They are part of a disinfo operation that fooled CIT.
4) They honestly and accurately describe what they have witnessed.
Click to expand...

Here is the problem that maybe is too hard of a concept to understand.

It wouldn't matter if you could parade 10,000,000 people into my office and say that the plane flew north of the Citgo. Then, I bring in one, who says that the plane flew on the heading that the FDR, radar, and the physical evidence all point to, and who do you think is going to be believed?

Yepo, physical evidence. Of which, CIT has NOT ONE SINGLE SHRED OF!!
 
Childlike Empress said:
Would you post that animated gif of Edward Paik for me again, beachnut?
Click to expand...
I was out. My dog ate the gif... I was ...

sorry, ... here it is I cut the samples when he stopped looking at where he was pointing; in the video when he turns back to the camera his hand moves further to the left.


Edwardpointsouth.gif

I worked with some Boeing investigators and I was trained in investigating aircraft accidents. What you really do is take a ruler or yard stick and have the witness line up his story slowly. After 5 years I have no idea why you would be asking them anything. Paik was amazing if you listen to his story, the sounds and his actions, they match the speed and other aspects of the incident when you include the physics. Like the sound of impact at the Pentagon is old news when it reaches Paik, over 3 seconds old but it matches what he reports to the event.

As you watch this gif, remember Paik says Flight 77 might of hit the VDOT tower behind him so his point of the path is relative.
 
beachnut said:
..........
As you watch this gif, remember Paik says Flight 77 might of hit the VDOT tower behind him so his point of the path is relative.
Click to expand...

A point completely ignored by the CiT. He is standing there, with the tower in the background and telling them he thought it might have touched the tower but the CiT claim a path that would exclude Paik ever considering this aspect.

Like you said, take it slowly and get information from the witness. Such as asking him to walk to a point that he would have considered to be directly under the fuselage.
 
Last edited:
It looks to me as though Paik is indicating a path that would have crossed the road behind him, in the direction of thge tower.
 
funk de fino said:
Paik showed them exactly where the flightpath was and they edited it to try and shoehorn it into their falsehoods.
Click to expand...
twinstead said:
He's that guy that was pointing exactly toward the "official story" path, but whose image was edited to make it look like he was pointing somewhere else, right?
Click to expand...


Let's investigate this, twinstead.

beachnut said:
... the only one who drew one path that matches close to the real path was Paik, one of his was right down the road, but even his drawn path does not match his testimony, he said 77 hit or almost hit the VDOT tower. Darn, if you use his testimony it matches the real flight path. But Paik pointing on video actually is very close to the real path if you pay attention.
Click to expand...
Childlike Empress said:
Would you post that animated gif of Edward Paik for me again, beachnut?
Click to expand...
beachnut said:
... here it is I cut the samples when he stopped looking at where he was pointing; in the video when he turns back to the camera his hand moves further to the left.

As you watch this gif, remember Paik says Flight 77 might of hit the VDOT tower behind him so his point of the path is relative.
Click to expand...


Edwardpointsouth.gif

Thank you beachnut, this is the image I was talking about. The road is Columbia Pike, the Antenna on the right is the VDOT tower. The "real/official" flight path never crosses the road and goes roughly parallel to it on the other side of the antenna. "South side" means roughly on the other side of the road and antenna from this perspective.

You claim that Paik's drawing and testimony come close to this flight path. Your image is called "Edwardpointsouth.gif".

funk de fino claims that CIT are deceptive about his testimony and "edited it to try and shoehorn it into their falsehoods".

Are you with me, twinstead?

Here is an overview drawn by Craig Ranke.

AllGroupsMap.jpg

The blue line is the "real/official" flight path, the yellow lines are the witness testimonies. The yellow line close to bottom left is Edward Paik's testimony according to Craig. Notice the VDOT tower in relation to the blue and the yellow line and how the yellow line crosses the road while the blue one doesn't.

Now we need Paik's testimony to see who is deceptive about it.

Here is "NSA" again. The witness testimonies start at around 16:00 into the video. Edward Paik is the first one. The sequence that beachnut uses for his animated gif comes shortly after 17:00, but he has used the original footage while Craig added the labeling I remembered for "NSA". "Columbia Pike" and "north side".

Please watch until 18:00.

​

Who is deceptive?

twinstead said:
He's that guy that was pointing exactly toward the "official story" path, but whose image was edited to make it look like he was pointing somewhere else, right?
Click to expand...


Edwardpointsouth.gif
 
Last edited:
sigh. CE do you notice where all the lines converge in Ranke's drawing? The preponderance of eye witness evidence and the entirety of physical evidence supports a large plane slamming into the Pentagon. I could care less if a handful of witnesses saw that plane fly down from the moon to hit it.

You're smarter than this. How on Earth can you rectify the physical evidence, the other eye-witness reports that contradict you, and the fact that no matter what you spin nobody saw this jet plane pull up and fly over the Pentagon with what Ranke is saying?

Sorry. Ranke is singularly unconvincing to rational people. That's why even truthers think no planers are nuts. That means they think YOU'RE nuts too, CE. How does that make you feel?
 
Childlike Empress said:
Let's investigate this, twinstead.


Ridiculous CIT lies snipped.


Edwardpointsouth.gif
Click to expand...

Hee hee! My god CE, you have really swallowed the Kool Aid!

Anyhow, why don't you post the Paik drawing that puts the plane South of Citgo?

Or better yet, why don't you run some numbers on your idiot lying heroes' flight paths?
 
Childlike Empress said:
Here is an overview drawn by Craig Ranke.

[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/AllGroupsMap.jpg[/qimg]​

The blue line is the "real/official" flight path, the yellow lines are the witness testimonies. The yellow line close to bottom left is Edward Paik's testimony according to Craig. Notice the VDOT tower in relation to the blue and the yellow line and how the yellow line crosses the road while the blue one doesn't.
Click to expand...

Why so many different paths? If the "testimonies" were all that credible, shouldn't they be all (essentially) the same?
 
Childlike Empress said:
[qimg]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/AllGroupsMap.jpg[/qimg]​

The blue line is the "real/official" flight path, the yellow lines are the witness testimonies. The yellow line close to bottom left is Edward Paik's testimony according to Craig. Notice the VDOT tower in relation to the blue and the yellow line and how the yellow line crosses the road while the blue one doesn't.
Click to expand...

location.jpg


How do you reconcile this?

?
 
jhunter1163 said:
...Turcios (who was climbing the embankment and couldn't see the impact).
Click to expand...

No, he ran inside the station, not up the embankment. I imagine it took some time to clean all of the wet stuff out of his drawers.
 
BCR said:
No, he ran inside the station, not up the embankment. .
Click to expand...

ohhh, now I remember that came out later didn't it.

kind of puts anything that Turcois said in another light.

Turcois first statements indicate a plane that went below his line of sight never to be seen again but he is then seen in a security video running into the station meaning that he bugged out as soon as he saw the plane inbound
 
Childlike Empress said:
So, what's your opinion?

1) The witnesses are all mistaken in the same bizarre way.
2) They are actors payed by CIT to pose as the real on record witnesses.
3) They are part of a disinfo operation that fooled CIT.
4) They honestly and accurately describe what they have witnessed.
Click to expand...

Childlike Empress said:
AllGroupsMap.jpg

The blue line is the "real/official" flight path, the yellow lines are the witness testimonies.
Click to expand...

The "same" way CE??

You might have noticed that there is a horrendous range in all those yellow lines.

It also ignores any witnesses who put the plane along the commonly accepted flight path. If one plotted ALL the paths that ALL the witnesses would describe then one would get a large variation that would include near the benter of that range, the commonly accepted flight path. Of course Ranke did not both getting or plotting ALL these descriptions, only those few that support his own POV.

If that line that begins furthest to the lower left is Paik's then one of the two to the north but over the Navy Annex are supposed to be Morin's?!
Neither one is actually where Morin said he saw the plane!

Seems that Craig had a bit of wishful thinking going on when he drew this picture and it is about as accurate as a drawing of a unicorn.
 
Childlike Empress said:
I mean the labeled image you (IIRC) posted that is supposed to show how Paik pointed in the direction supporting the official flightpath, and CIT misrepresented his claim. Paik is the first witness included in "NSA" and we could take this step by step. Thanks to you, DGM and Mr de fino for answering my question. Three votes for unanimously mistaken witnesses, most of them working everyday at the scene and reporting something from a day we all remember exactly where we were. We can take it on from here after Christmas.

cu folks, have a nice time!
Click to expand...

I'm still scratching my head as to why Craig/CIT/Aldo seem to be legit in your eyes. But Balsmao, Fetzer, etc, etc are snake oil salesmen.
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
Edwardpointsouth.gif
Click to expand...


I think i've come across the original image. Someone reposted an old article by Caustic Logic on 911 Blogger and in the comments, he posted a very similar animated gif to beachnut's. It has the same format but 41 frames instead of beachnut's 20 frames. The cut is legitimate, it doesn't omit information.

The image's name is "Edwardpointsnorth.gif".

beachnut, i think you owe the people who trust your information an explanation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom