8 out of 8 at Citgo station

jaydeehess said:
I know that what was presented ignored the fact that all of these witnesses say that the plane hit the Pentagon.
Click to expand...
Childlike Empress said:
No, it didn't. It's prominent in the presentation.
Click to expand...
They DO in fact ignore it in that they simply dismiss this fact out of hand. A point which I brought up in my next sentence.

I understand that the CiT contend that everyone was fooled into not noticing that the plane flew over the Pentagon.
Click to expand...
,,, and expanded upon further,,,

I understand that on one hand the CiT promote eyewitness accounts as solid evidence and yet on the other hand discount eyewitness accounts at the point where all of them agree on a single point, that the aircraft hit the building.

I understand that the CiT have made a contention of a flyover without any single shred of evidence that this actually occured which makes it nothing more than a fiction of their own construction.
Click to expand...

,, and YOU promptly ignored,,, (without even the courtesy to argue its dismissal)
This is my 357th post in this thread. If anyone is honestly interested in my opinions on the various details, read it. I'm not going to repeat myself.

Dawn Vignola is neighter a NoC nor SoC witness. Far too far away to judge. She is a plane witness who thinks it hit the building. Read mudlark's posts early in this thread for a dissection of the lists of alleged SoC witnesses circulated by the TruthSims and parroted by the DebunkSims.

Cya.
Click to expand...
 
jaydeehess said:
Indeed that would be a good fit for what the CiT put forth by ignoring all evidence, including that which their own witnesses say about impact.

Well, do you deny that all witnesses in position to see it describe an impact with the Pentagon and none describe this aircarft as flying over the Pentagon , or do you not deny this?(if not how can you not, please explain)


Really? I mean really, do you believe that it is highly possible that I am a paid shill for a gov't or extra-governmental organization? Really?
Click to expand...

Childlike Empress said:
Uhm, no. If you weren't so trapped into your little conformation biased self perception of being a super rational 9/11 debunker up against foolish twoofers, you would have noticed that i stated that i have no reason to think that you are not for real. Several regulars in this thread, however, have proven to me and astute observers that they are, indeed, not for real. A major red flag is that they don't care about maintaining credibility.

Being associated with disinformation agents is of course something any remotely decent person would hate to be, reinforcing already existing confirmation bias, and the prospect of having been actively on the wrong side of history, unintentionally covering up for mass murder and high treason, as a useful idiot, is something one wouldn't tell ones descendents about. A terrible burden.
Click to expand...

jaydeehess said:
Granted I asked you IF I was not 'for real' what would I be.
OTOH you say that you have no reason to believe that I am not and yet you persist in not answering the other, on topic, question I put forth, which is bolded above



Thus I ask the bolded question above and wonder how a decent person wishing not to adhere to any confirmation bias by others involved, can notice that the conclusions reached by the CiT are simply not backed by preponderance of evidence as to what took place at the Pentagon on Sept 11, 2001.

Please answer the above bolded question.
Click to expand...

Childlike Empress said:
Of course I don't deny it. Do you think this is news to me? I'm not Richard Gage.
Click to expand...

jaydeehess said:
Then how can you promote that a few witnesses with divergent views on where the plane approached, is more accurate than other witnesses with less divergent opinions on the approach path , and more accurate than all of the witness statement in which they say that the plane actually impacted the large and very obvious reference point?

How can you accept the contention of a flyover when there is absolutly no eyewitness statements that say this?

That is if not by adhereing to a solid confirmation bias?
Click to expand...

Childlike Empress said:
btw jaydeehess, your bolded question proves that if you watched NSA, you didn't understand what was presented to you.
Click to expand...

jaydeehess said:
I know that what was presented ignored the fact that all of these witnesses say that the plane hit the Pentagon. I understand that the CiT contend that everyone was fooled into not noticing that the plane flew over the Pentagon.
I understand that on one hand the CiT promote eyewitness accounts as solid evidence and yet on the other hand discount eyewitness accounts at the point where all of them agree on a single point, that the aircraft hit the building.

I understand that the CiT have made a contention of a flyover without any single shred of evidence that this actually occured which makes it nothing more than a fiction of their own construction.

that you adhere to this fictitious construction illustrates that you suffer the same bias that the CiT do.(not that that was in doubt)
Click to expand...

CE says that I lied about having watched "NSA".

Did I say that I had in any of the above exchange?
 
jaydeehess said:
CE says that I lied about having watched "NSA".
Click to expand...


Wow, this is bold, jaydeehess.

First of all, you didn't quote where i said that you "lied" about having watched NSA. The reason you don't quote me is that I didn't say it. You lied about that. Here is what i said:

Childlike Empress said:
You have proven in the other thread that you are either not capable of understanding the topic or unwilling to do so. You don't look good on your high horse - it's rotten.
Click to expand...

Childlike Empress said:
This was after you've claimed to have watched NSA but made fundamentally false statements about it's content. Either delusional or dishonest. In any case, not worth my time. Cya.
Click to expand...


I said that you claimed to have watched NSA but proven that your understanding of it is fundamentally flawed. I gave several possible explanations, one being that you are dishonest.

jaydeehess said:
Did I say that I had in any of the above exchange?
Click to expand...


No, you didn't. So you didn't watch it? Now here's an admission.

But there's a problem.

jaydeehess said:
Incorrect CE.
I have watched Pentacon and NSA and I have heard, and read Morin's statements, Middleton's, Boger's, Paik's.
I have seen all of this.

The CiT contentions are pure and unadulterated works of fiction sprining wildly from the politically motivated minds of Craig and Aldo and not backed up in any way shape or fashion by the physical evidence OR by the eyewitness statements.

ETA: What would I be if not 'for real'?

Further edit: a quick search reveals that I have posted in 21 threads in which I used the word 'flyover'. So CE, any contention that I have not followed up on what the CiT propose can be shown to be incorrect by reviewing what I have said in the past in those threads.
Click to expand...


Liar, Liar, pants on fire!
 
jaydeehess said:
CE says that I lied about having watched "NSA".

Did I say that I had in any of the above exchange?
Click to expand...
Does this mean CE supports the failed flyover? He is giving you an audience. 8 of 8 think 77 impacted the Pentagon.


911kongen said:
.. says that flight 77 had a different flight path ? Whats the source on this one.. can not find it!:boggled:
Click to expand...
The crack team of investigators, CIT, made it up out of ignorance. CE, u r off topic, and have no evidence to save your CIT buddies from ignorance.
 
wadda ya know I did say I watched it.

In fact I have watched what the CiT have put out and if a couple of months ago I determined that one of these was NSA then I stand by what I said. I am not particularily interested in tracking it down online to watch and remind myself again that I have seen it, and,,,,,,,,,

Continuing on then CE,,,,,,,,,,,,

What is in "NSA" that has not been put down in the pages of the JREF "911 conspiracy theories" subforum? Is there something in it that I might not have already seen here?

Exactly what is the excuse used by the CiT in "NSA" for ignoring/dismissing or outright contradicting the witnesses who's statements all converge at this specific, that the plane impacted the Pentagon?
Why is there no divergence? Why do none of the witnesses say they at first thought the plane had hit, or was going to hit, an upper floor? Why do they ALL have it hitting the lower floor or the ground directly at the base of the structure IFD indeed it actually was flying 70+ feet above ground at the time?
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
Wow, this is bold, jaydeehess.

First of all, you didn't quote where i said that you "lied" about having watched NSA. The reason you don't quote me is that I didn't say it. You lied about that.
Click to expand...

jaydeehess, your bolded question proves that if you watched NSA, you didn't understand what was presented to you
Click to expand...

What did you mean then when you used the word "IF"? Perhaps you meant that it proved that "having watched it" I did not understand what was presented? If not and you fully intend the "IF" then you most certainly are doubting my claim to have watched, ie. calling me a liar.

Now, since that diversion is now over AFAIAC get back to explaining the CiT senario that allows all the witness statements as to impacts to be dismissed by the CiT.

(everybody put down any drinking vessels and swallow what is in your mouth before reading CE's explanation otherwise you may have to clean off your monitor)
 
beachnut said:
Does this mean CE supports the failed flyover? He is giving you an audience. 8 of 8 think 77 impacted the Pentagon.
.
Click to expand...

I am not sure as to how many times now I have asked CE and perhaps other adherants to the CiT POV to explain the dismissing/ignoring of the witness statements concerning impact. I do know that they simply call the closest observer, Boger, a liar for saying that he watched impact. I know that they have tried to cast doubt on the ability of a few others to have seen the point of impact(somehow ignoring the fact that these would still have a good view of the roofline-yet no flyover witness). It seems then that the CiT would have us believe that no one at all was in position to see impact except for one or two who are just lieing about it. All this in order to push a senario for which the CiT has NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER!
 
jaydeehess said:
Continuing on then CE,,,,,,,,,,,,
Click to expand...


Wait a minute. You address me in the general discussion thread and ask me to tell you what CIT is up to these days, apparently forgetting about your participation here. I remember our exchanges and point out that your ignorance is feigned. After some wiggling by you, I tell you why you don't qualify for further discussion and why you have (had) the last word in this thread. Then you bump it with a bizarrely stupid post exposing yourself as a liar.

And after this, you think i've suddenly changed my mind and am interested in "continuing"? You must be kidding. Won't happen. I recommend some self-reflection instead.

:dig:

Bye.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Wait a minute. You address me in the general discussion thread and ask me to tell you what CIT is up to these days, apparently forgetting about your participation here. I remember our exchanges and point out that your ignorance is feigned. After some wiggling by you, I tell you why you don't qualify for further discussion and why you have (had) the last word in this thread. Then you bump it with a bizarrely stupid post exposing yourself as a liar.

And after this, you think i've suddenly changed my mind and am interested in "continuing"? You must be kidding. Won't happen. I recommend some self-reflection instead.

:dig:

Bye.
Click to expand...
No evidence to support CIT claims? The big liars are CIT. Flyover? Did you fall for the flyover lie? How is CIT taking failure in the 10th year? Got anything, as Paik points to the SoC flight path, to support your claims on 911 related to CIT failure to do anything more than spread false claims? No? Yes? How is CIT doing with UBL gone, who will they apologize for now by making up false information?
 
Childlike Empress said:
Wait a minute. You address me in the general discussion thread and ask me to tell you what CIT is up to these days, apparently forgetting about your participation here. I remember our exchanges and point out that your ignorance is feigned. After some wiggling by you, I tell you why you don't qualify for further discussion and why you have (had) the last word in this thread. Then you bump it with a bizarrely stupid post exposing yourself as a liar.

And after this, you think i've suddenly changed my mind and am interested in "continuing"? You must be kidding. Won't happen. I recommend some self-reflection instead.

:dig:

Bye.
Click to expand...

You're not interested in telling JREF what is new in "NSA" that has not been covered in these pages, that I apparently misunderstood or lied about knowing about, which explains why the CiT can ignore/dismiss/discount the accounts that all have the aircraft hitting the Pentagon.

I have asked you and probably others this many times now and not a single relevent response.

Ok bye then,,,,,,


I "don't qualify" for further discussion from CE. Would some more qualified JREF deign to ask the simple question of CE then? I'll just sit back and shut up being as unqualified as I am.

anyone else? ,,,,, any other CiT groupies here? ,,,, perhaps a PfT follower might chime in, as the CiT and PfT are so buddy-buddy?
 
Last edited:
Paik points south, Morin describes south, Middleton describes a path that no one at all except he describes (north of the Navy Annex!) Lagasse was in his car within seconds of the a/c going past him, Brooks was in his car and had to look around to see the a/c, Turcois is not believable but his interview by the CiT does illustrate how they were willing to lead a witness(first he points south over the canopy, is asked 'was it over the canopy?' yes, then 'was the right wing over the canopy?' 'was the fuselage over this tree?' yes and yes. Turcois orginally said it rose up a bit to clear the embankment and then was out of his sight obvious telling them that the plane had gone down below his view past the embankment and the CiT jump on this to proclaim Turcois as having seen the plane rise up as it approached the Pentagon. Video shows Turcois was running towards the station building and had his back to the Pentagon - gets laughed at and the CiT eventually stop talking about Turcois:) )

BUT,,,,, Middleton, Morin, Lagasse, Brooks, and Boger to name a few, all say that the aircraft hit/impacted/crashed into the Pentagon and the CiT then go one further than they did with the statements about the path of the a/c, they simply discount any and all statements concerning impact with the Pentagon.
Why?

Because it contradicts their absolute fiction about a flyover.
 
How is the "call to action" that is "National Security Alert" coming along? Anyone know?
Have tens of thousands of people watched "NSA" and written, phoned, or e-mailed politicians, NTSB, ICAO, or pilot's unions? Is there a large and vocal group pushing for action on this compelling evidence that Flight 77 did not impact the Pentagon?
 
jaydeehess said:
How is the "call to action" that is "National Security Alert" coming along? Anyone know?
Have tens of thousands of people watched "NSA" and written, phoned, or e-mailed politicians, NTSB, ICAO, or pilot's unions? Is there a large and vocal group pushing for action on this compelling evidence that Flight 77 did not impact the Pentagon?
Click to expand...
When the goal is to sell moronic nonsense, you can't let anyone take action. CIT's believers are too stupid to take meaningful action, and when they do, their parents will refuse to drive them to city hall to carry a sign proving they are dolts. CIT has to play this failure gig for as long as pay-pal lets disrespectful cretins have accounts to fool the gullible nuts.
 
Mr.Herbert said:


http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/report.html
Click to expand...

Assuming that the site began its 'construction' at or about the June 2009 release of "National Security Alert" it seems to be taking a bit longer than I would have thought prudent. If they have since decided not to use this page you would think that they would juist remove it from the site.

Perhaps they are taking a page out of the PfT's M.O. ala the "11 g' calculations page. :D
 
16.5 said:
lulz! I don't know why they even bothered.

CE coming back in here to spam NSA for the 1000th time and to ignore all the mountains of posts debunking it in 3....2....1...
Click to expand...

nah that's not it 16.5.

Its just that unless you recall the details of a two year old 81 minute video you just are not qualified to request that CE speak to any questions regarding the CiT senario.

I went back and watched the first few minutes of the "NSA" on the CiT site.

Yep, its familiar, I did watch it 2 years ago, or at least much of it. I do not recall if I sat through the whole thing.

Still asking CE or any CiT aficianado,,,,

Is there something in "NSA" that has not been posted in the JREF forums, specifically concerning how the CiT manages to ignore/dismiss/discount the single convergent item in the testimony of witnesses : that the plane impacted the Pentagon and that those who mention where it hit all have it hit low on the structure. :::?
 
jaydeehess said:
I went back and watched the first few minutes of the "NSA" on the CiT site. [...]

Is there something in "NSA" that has not been posted in the JREF forums, specifically concerning how the CiT manages to ignore/dismiss/discount the single convergent item in the testimony of witnesses : that the plane impacted the Pentagon and that those who mention where it hit all have it hit low on the structure. :::?
Click to expand...


The answer is in the first few minutes of NSA and, as I told you before, prominent throughout the presentation. They don't dismiss or discount it, and they certainly don't ignore it. They say it was a deception. A "magic" trick. It's really ironic that this concept seems so difficult to understand on the James Randi Educational Foundation Forum, of all places.
 
Childlike Empress said:
The answer is in the first few minutes of NSA and, as I told you before, prominent throughout the presentation. They don't dismiss or discount it, and they certainly don't ignore it. They say it was a deception. A "magic" trick. It's really ironic that this concept seems so difficult to understand on the James Randi Educational Foundation Forum, of all places.
Click to expand...

Not ironic at all, because anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of how magic tricks are performed could tell you that CIT's "magic trick" would never work as described.
 
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