8 out of 8 at Citgo station

i really don't think you guys should answer any more Truther questions, unless it is clear that they are willing to do their own research. if they are just coming to JREF for supposed answers, which REALLY means they are just here for laughs, than its really not worth wasting any energy on them.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Edwardpointsouth.gif

Edward points east, Liar. On the north side of Columbia Pike, Liar.

Attack the argument, not the arguer
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode
Click to expand...

Just asking questions but why is Balsamo a snake oil salesman and CIT legit?
 
UNLoVedRebel said:
How do you know what he "believed" and what he saw. He said he saw the light poles north of Citgo. Stop calling Lagasse a liar. His testimony has been corroborated. You just claimed you agree with Mr England that the light poles were North of the Citgo and the plane hit the pentagon. If you don't believe this, try to explain why the light poles WEREN'T north of the citgo and why the corroborating independently verified witnesses are all of the sudden wrong and the official story is right.
Click to expand...

That´s a really weak and pathetic play on words.
I KNOW that he was sure which side of the Citgo gas station he ´believed´ he saw the plane. Corraborated by his partner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elKov_UZDQE

¨Obviously what I saw happened, therefore the conclusions made by people who didnt see it can be flawed...I accept the fact that there can be miscalculations on my part, but NOT whether or not the plane was on the North or South side of the gas station."
Click to expand...

Why don´t YOU go and ask him what he ´believed´ he saw and tell him he is wrong.

You just claimed you agree with Mr England that the light poles were North of the Citgo and the plane hit the pentagon. If you don't believe this, try to explain why the light poles WEREN'T north of the citgo and why the corroborating independently verified witnesses are all of the sudden wrong and the official story is right
Click to expand...


What are you babbling about???
 
BCR said:
I did not ignore. He said he could not see exactly where it hit. The key is that he did see it go down and 'hit' something. He did not see it fly over and beyond. After it 'hit' something, he did not see it flying around again. From his vantage point at ~3,000 feet agl, he could see very well (nice clear day). I also have 'as it happened' audio for 2 Arlington County police officers on Columbia Pike. The saw it go down and 'hit' something. They did not see it again after that and they were both facing towards the Pentagon.

So here we have a a plane, described 'as it happened' as an American Airlines 757. The 'as it happened' record indicates it 'hit' something, never to be seen again. The radar tells the same story. So, what happened to the plane mudlark?
Click to expand...

False.

"I distinctly remember having a difficult time keeping the AA flight in sight after we turned back to the east to follow it per a request from Wash. Departure Control. When I saw the initial explosion I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC. It was then that I was able to see the sun reflecting off the Potomac and the runway at Wash. Nat'l and thought to myself that the AA flight must have had some sort of IFE and was trying to make it back to National Airport."
Colonel Steve O´Brien
Click to expand...

Give it up man.
He was meant to make out a plane when he couldn´t even make out the BUILDING?

Aren´t you the guy who supplied the 2 data points beyond the Navy Annex?
One was NOC and the other was almost on the I-395 going towards South Parking?

Yeah I´ve seen that.
Pass. Thanks :rolleyes:
 
Originally Posted by mudlark

Okay, night folks. Hopefully one of you guys will have the courage to put forward just ONE SOC witness by tomorrow...
Click to expand...

Redtail said:
... Why would anyone have to?
Click to expand...

Because it was proposed earlier in the thread that there were ´100s´ of them?
Because the argument is whether the plane flew NOC and not one SOC witness has been offered as a counterargument?
 
mudlark said:
That´s a really weak and pathetic play on words.
Click to expand...
Then you must not be impressed with the verbal skills of tubby and tremors, since those are their words. You have zero evidence the light poles were on the South side of the gas station and corroborating eyewitness testimonies of the light poles being on the North side.
 
Mr.Herbert said:


"At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again -- only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring."


Ouch! Penny ever get interviewed by the Douche Twins?
Click to expand...

So I take it the 1.3 seconds from lightpole 1 to the Pentagon facade and the
0.8 second penetration of the building are a falsehood?
I personally can´t understand how she could extract so much detail of an impact at the alleged speed of both the plane and the penetration.
All the while not taking her eyes off an instantaneous explosion shown on the 5 frames?

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/pentanimxox1rt.gif

(or is this not 100% either?)

A blastwave that was felt up to 2km away?

Hopefully they soon will.

There was one interview by a person who failed to ask specific questions on NOC and the right hand banking manouevre attested by many others not included on CIT´s NOC witnesses, but garnered two pertinent facts which exposed media dishonesty about her testimony.

HILL: ¨And you said you saw it... you saw it hit one of the light poles?¨

ELGAS: ¨ No, I didn't see it hit. I heard on the news that it hit a light pole
Click to expand...

On how she came across the Smithsonian debris

HILL: ¨And that kinda... the... what I was reading it fell into your car?¨

ELGAS: ¨Well, that's what THEY said, but that's not what happened.¨

HILL: ¨You just picked it up, or?¨

ELGAS: ¨ I Picked it up¨.
Click to expand...

Personally I can´t wait to hear what else Craig and Aldo will find out if they do interview her.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted by jhunter1163
Which media is lying, Mudlark?

Originally Posted by mudlark
Take your pick. Manipulation. Embellishment.
Click to expand...

Cl1mh4224rd said:
Umm... "Manipulation" and "Embellishment" aren't the names of any media organizations that I'm aware of. Perhaps you could reread that question and provide a meaningful response the second time around.
Click to expand...

What difference does it make?
The quotes I mentioned appeared in links which were in turn linked to various media outlets. Go look them up. They are there.
 
Mudlark. Your PATH IS IMPOSSIBLE. I don't care how many witnesses you can trot out. Your flight path is impossible. What sad is that you don't even care!
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by mudlark
NOC. Funny how the damage allegedly caused by the plane happened from these alleged trajectories huh?
Click to expand...

A W Smith said:
Fixed your reply to me.
Click to expand...

Is that it?

Still waiting on an answer as to how the witnesses in the link you posted contradict the NOC witnesses when many back this claim up, many did not and physically COULD not see any ´impact´, many HEARD an explosion, many make NO bearing on whether the plane was NOC or SOC and more importantly NONE describe SOC.
 
QUOTE=UNLoVedRebel;5470461][qimg]http://www.911myths.com/images/f/fe/Edwardpointsnorth.gif[/qimg][/QUOTE]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1E6HHOfBbE

The gif that you repeatedly show is in relation to Craig Ranke asking Ed Paik the ALTITUDE of the plane as it passed over him. He was pointing at the roof of the building as a perspective. NOT the direction it took.

02:28

Craig: How high was the plane when it was in front of you?

Ed Paik: uhhh..almost hit (points at roof)..I thought at that time the airplane hit...uhhh roof, MY ROOF. My building roof (points the length of his roof)...Hit THIS ROOF.That much lower.
Click to expand...

03:50

He makes the same gesture, talking about his roof without looking behind him.

The gif you use is a pure manipulation of footage that has NOTHING to do with the direction of the plane.
He places the body over the roof AT AN ANGLE that brings the plane NOC.
Are you suggesting that at 540+mph that there could be ANY deviation in course by the time it came over the annex??

When asked the direction he makes this signal

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/paikheading.gif

He draws this line

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/paikmap-2.jpg

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/edpaiksextendedpath-1.jpg

Can we drop this charade now?

He is an NOC witness no matter how you try and manipulate images and play on words.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mudlark said:
What difference does it make?
The quotes I mentioned appeared in links which were in turn linked to various media outlets. Go look them up. They are there.
Click to expand...

They were linked to a ---------->conspiracy site<---------- which twisted the "white smoke" comment into the good Reverend seeing a missile.

Does that make it a little clearer?
 
mudlark said:
Is that it?

Still waiting on an answer as to how the witnesses in the link you posted contradict the NOC witnesses when many back this claim up, many did not and physically COULD not see any ´impact´, many HEARD an explosion, many make NO bearing on whether the plane was NOC or SOC and more importantly NONE describe SOC.
Click to expand...

Still waiting as to how your proposed flight path and pull up over the Pentagon is physically possible!
 
mudlark said:
http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/paikheading.gif
Click to expand...
hyenalaughingbr3.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
beachnut said:
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Edwardpointsouth.gif[/qimg]

Paik points to Pentagon direct. Fact, Paik says 77 almost hit the tower behind Paik in the photo, the VDOT tower. This all supports 61.2 to 61.5 degrees found in the hard evidence of the FDR found in the Pentagon after the exact damage made by a kinetic energy impact of a 757. Oops, DNA verifies the impact, and makes CIT dirt dumb liars; are you supporting the delusions of idiots?
Click to expand...

False. In an earlier interview with Russel Pickering

PICKERING: You didn't SEE it hit the tower.

PAIK: At that time no I didn't see that. Because, uh, next morning the, uh, the repair guys go up there.
Click to expand...

He did NOT think the plane ´hit the tower´. He saw ´repair guys´ the next day. He says the body of the plane was ´over the roof´. Are you suggesting he thought the wings extended that far?

Paik points not east but to a flight path of 77; verifies the south flight path, gif titled paik points south
Click to expand...

False. He was pointing at the roof in that gif AND without looking behind him.
He was NOT talking of the direction.

witnesses
Click to expand...

Not ´100s of witnesses´? Got any SOC to put forward?
 
BCR said:
And his brother says that Edward ducked and covered his head as the plane flew over.
Click to expand...

Wow that horrible soundtrack with high pitched phone ringing during the questioning is your evidence??
He (whoever he allegedly is) didn´t mention anything about ´ducking and covering his head´
You want me to believe you that he motioned this to you?
Weak.

Have you a transcript?
 
jhunter1163 said:
They were linked to a ---------->conspiracy site<---------- which twisted the "white smoke" comment into the good Reverend seeing a missile.

Does that make it a little clearer?
Click to expand...

His quote appears in a religious spread

¨Henry Ticknor, intern minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, Virginia, was driving to church that Tuesday morning when American Airlines Flight 77 came in fast and low over his car and struck the Pentagon. "There was a puff of white smoke and then a huge billowing black cloud," he said.¨
Click to expand...

I pointed out that even though he publically cleared this discrepancy up and that he was MILES away from the scene debunker sites STILL quote him as an ´impact witness´.
And I´m sure that he will continue to be used. Dishonesty. But what else can you expect.
There was a conspiracy site that claimed the white smoke was from a missile but I have had debunkers claiming that this white smoke was from the 5 frames.
Both just as dishonest.

What about the other dishonest articles I mentioned? have you looked at them?
 
jhunter1163 said:
It was about ten feet down from the top of the tower, a little high for passing cars. Maybe a really big bird.
Click to expand...

Maybe a soldering mark from the metal steps they have for manual workers to climb the tower?
Who knows.
Thw wing didn´t do it. That´s for sure. Unless the wing stretched all the way from the top of the Annex. Is that what you´re saying?
 
mudlark said:
Maybe a soldering mark from the metal steps they have for manual workers to climb the tower?
Who knows.
Thw wing didn´t do it. That´s for sure. Unless the wing stretched all the way from the top of the Annex. Is that what you´re saying?
Click to expand...

Umm, no. It was pretty clearly clipped by the wing going by. You obviously haven't seen the pic in question. And if the right wingtip of the plane clipped the VDOT mast, it was obviously directly over Rt. 27, well to the south of where Ranquis put it.
 
mudlark said:
He is 100% NOC.
Click to expand...
Yup. That's exactly the problem that you're too dumb to understand. He and Lagasse put the light poles north of citgo and the plane into the pentagon, corroborated & "independently verified" by England. What exactly is the conspiracy theory here?
 
Last edited:
twinstead said:
Mudlark. Your PATH IS IMPOSSIBLE. I don't care how many witnesses you can trot out. Your flight path is impossible. What sad is that you don't even care!
Click to expand...

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1248677650819981509

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=122

There ya go.
Any problems with it go over there and tell them.

Any chance of YOU telling ME what flightpath the plane took?
Seems to be a mystery around here where the plane flew from the Navy Annex to lightpole 1.
 
jhunter1163 said:
Umm, no. It was pretty clearly clipped by the wing going by. You obviously haven't seen the pic in question. And if the right wingtip of the plane clipped the VDOT mast, it was obviously directly over Rt. 27, well to the south of where Ranquis put it.
Click to expand...

How was it ´pretty clearly clipped by the wing going by´??
So you are saying that the plane never went over the Navy Annex?
 
According to Morin, no, it didn't. It went parallel to the edge of the Navy Annex. And you may not be aware of the fact that Morin stated that he had come out from between the wings of the Annex before the plane got there, but Ranquis twisted his words around too.

Seems like your heroes are a gang of liars, Mudlark.
 
Just so you should know hunter, CIT phoned about the VDOT tower and were told that the plane did NOT strike the tower but that the FBI were strengthening communications.
Hope that clears this up before you start embarrassing yourself more.
Ask Farmer too :)
 
mudlark said:
Because it was proposed earlier in the thread that there were ´100s´ of them?
Click to expand...
When?

Because the argument is whether the plane flew NOC and not one SOC witness has been offered as a counterargument?
Click to expand...
Not needed. All of the physical evidence points to the fight path being on the south side of the citgo.
 
mudlark said:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1248677650819981509

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=122

There ya go.
Any problems with it go over there and tell them.
Click to expand...
Why are you repeating this dodge after I had pointed out that the co-author of that paper, Tino Desideri, has himself been banned from PfT for disagreeing with Balsamo?
:p

16.5 said:
Uhh, yeah, why are you reposting this when i told you what was wrong with this, and you said you were going to go back and ask PFFT for the answers. Did you lie about that??

Stop posting until you can show us CIT's stupid flight path is possible.
Click to expand...
 
jhunter1163 said:
According to Morin, no, it didn't. It went parallel to the edge of the Navy Annex. And you may not be aware of the fact that Morin stated that he had come out from between the wings of the Annex before the plane got there, but Ranquis twisted his words around too.

Seems like your heroes are a gang of liars, Mudlark.
Click to expand...

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/morinPOV2-1.gif
Look at his exact words

"I was inside, it flew over the top of me"

"I had no side view"

"I didn't see the stripes I saw the silver belly"
Click to expand...

How do these lines fit with your assertion?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
W.D.Clinger said:
Why are you repeating this dodge after I had pointed out that the co-author of that paper, Tino Desideri, has himself been banned from PfT for disagreeing with Balsamo?
:p
Click to expand...

What have those figures regarding the possibility of an NOC flyover got to do with those two disagreeing over a completely separate issue??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom