8 out of 8 at Citgo station

Grizzly Bear said:
I'm still not sure how this 8 of 8 at Citgo logic thing works. How does cherry picking witnesses, ignoring all conventions of collecting eye witness testimony, and making bald faced unsupported claims add up to a compelling case?


Another question I've asked in the past is, if the inside job issue was such an obvious thing why do "truthers" need to sensationalize their "facts" beyond the realm of reality? If you have to go this far to convince somebody you are absolutely beyond help.

:\
Click to expand...

When does it become cherry picking?

Good witnesses should supposedly be ignored because they represent
too small a number?

You are saying the witness count holds more credibility than the quality of witness?

MM
 
BCR said:
But it was obviously an 'inside job'. 100% of the eyewitnesses agree, the plane went 'inside' the building ... why isn't that obvious to you :)
Click to expand...

When it comes to murder, CIT has to exploit it to make money with Balsamo. Misleading the gullible, those who can't figure out 911 given 9 years and the evidence. Connecting the dot challenged - 911 truth.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
I'm still not sure how this 8 of 8 at Citgo logic thing works. How does cherry picking witnesses, ignoring all conventions of collecting eye witness testimony, and making bald faced unsupported claims add up to a compelling case?

:\
Click to expand...

Miragememories said:
When does it become cherry picking?

Good witnesses should supposedly be ignored because they represent
too small a number?

You are saying the witness count holds more credibility than the quality of witness?

MM
Click to expand...

There is a logical fallacy called the "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy". This analogy is to that of a Texan who goes out and shoots at the side of his barn, then walks up to the bullet hole and paints a bullseye around it claiming then that he is a sharpshooter.

The CiT demonstrate this by parsing all witnesses and dismissing or ignoring all witness statements or parts of witness statements that do not support their contentions and then claim that they have essentially hit the bullseye proving that the aircraft went to the north of the Citgo.

Now MM, if witness count alone were the end all and be all of illustrating what the aircraft did or did not do then the CiT contention of a fly-over would be very much dead in the water would it not? After all of all who were in position to se it, there are ONLY witnesses that say the plane impacted the Pentagon and there are NO witnesses that say it flew over the Pentagon.

So in both cases the CiT lose, they parse witnesses and use any made up excuse they pull out of thin air to dismiss those they do not like AND many of the ones they do pick as shining examples of descriptions of what the aircraft did state clearly that the plane HIT the Pentagon AND there is no one anywhere , who saw the plane that approached the Pentagon, pull up and fly over it.
 
16.5 said:
Sort of, Richard Gage threw your heroes under the bus, and DRG and Jesse were caught lying about the "voice morphing" technology, CIT turned off their forum, the Loose Change guy got arrested, and there are a couple of new No Planers on the board.

So basically, same old, same old.
Click to expand...

Nice summation 16.5

I will add that Gourley was on A Jones proclaiming that he had video of Robertson SAYING he saw pools(or was it rivers) of molten "steel" and that he(Gourley) would post it publically 'soon'. That was in November and AFAIK its still not posted to Gourley's site. One wonders why............
 
Oh, and we have a 911 conspiracist who has developed contentions that allow for WTC tower destruction that more closely matches what NIST said happened in order to reduce the amount of explosives/thermite/mystery devices required to initiate collapse.
 
jaydeehess said:
There is a logical fallacy called the "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy". This analogy is to that of a Texan who goes out and shoots at the side of his barn, then walks up to the bullet hole and paints a bullseye around it claiming then that he is a sharpshooter.

The CiT demonstrate this by parsing all witnesses and dismissing or ignoring all witness statements or parts of witness statements that do not support their contentions and then claim that they have essentially hit the bullseye proving that the aircraft went to the north of the Citgo.

Now MM, if witness count alone were the end all and be all of illustrating what the aircraft did or did not do then the CiT contention of a fly-over would be very much dead in the water would it not? After all of all who were in position to se it, there are ONLY witnesses that say the plane impacted the Pentagon and there are NO witnesses that say it flew over the Pentagon.

So in both cases the CiT lose, they parse witnesses and use any made up excuse they pull out of thin air to dismiss those they do not like AND many of the ones they do pick as shining examples of descriptions of what the aircraft did state clearly that the plane HIT the Pentagon AND there is no one anywhere , who saw the plane that approached the Pentagon, pull up and fly over it.
Click to expand...

You fail to prove that the CIT quality witnesses merely painted circles around the aircraft flightpath.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
You fail to prove that the CIT quality witnesses merely painted circles around the aircraft flightpath.
Click to expand...


He proves that he relies on reports of his duhbunkie buddies and never went to look at the first hand material himself (assuming he's for real and i have no reason to doubt it). That's the beauty and danger of this evidence, and the reason why the TruthSims are so forcefully outing themselves. :)
 
Childlike Empress said:
He proves that he relies on reports of his duhbunkie buddies and never went to look at the first hand material himself (assuming he's for real and i have no reason to doubt it). That's the beauty and danger of this evidence, and the reason why the TruthSims are so forcefully outing themselves. :)
Click to expand...
RADAR debunks the CIT morons. Too bad CIT morons can't do science, math, or the physics required to realize, to comprehend their flight path are physically impossible. Why don't CIT comprehend RADAR? Do you understand RADAR?

11RADARdata.jpg
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
He proves that he relies on reports of his duhbunkie buddies and never went to look at the first hand material himself (assuming he's for real and i have no reason to doubt it). That's the beauty and danger of this evidence, and the reason why the TruthSims are so forcefully outing themselves. :)
Click to expand...

I... what... you... Hippo!
 
Childlike Empress said:
He proves that he relies on reports of his duhbunkie buddies and never went to look at the first hand material himself (assuming he's for real and i have no reason to doubt it). That's the beauty and danger of this evidence, and the reason why the TruthSims are so forcefully outing themselves. :)
Click to expand...

Oh man, is that English?

The beauty and the danger of this evidence? Truthsims? Hee hee...

Anyway, you reminded me of something. CE have you seen the evidence, or just CIT's hack job, overlayed with his silky voice, and half opened shirt? Dreamy.

Anyway, the "evidence"? You know, the raw video?
 
Miragememories said:
You fail to prove that the CIT quality witnesses merely painted circles around the aircraft flightpath.

MM
Click to expand...

As pointed out you seem to lack the ability to comprehend what I wrote.


OTOH if it is your contention that the parsed and/or manipulated witness statements that the CiT claim are 'true' , are in fact demonstrating a bullseye on the actual flight path of the a/c I should point out that they range from Middleton's 'south of the naval Annex' path, through Boger's 'over the Annex and Citgo' and to Morin's 'over the south extent of the Annex'. In which case (to carry the analogy) the CiT have painted the entire side of the barn red and called it a bulleye.

What I have done, and YOU KNOW IT TO BE TRUE, so does CE, so does Craig, so does Aldo, as does everyone on this forum who has bothered to learn about the CiT, ,,,,

There are NO witnesses who saw a plane approach the Pentagon and fly over it and there are witnesses, even among the 'quality' 8 , who did see a plane approach the Pentagon and state that this aircraft then hit that structure.
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
He proves that he relies on reports of his duhbunkie buddies and never went to look at the first hand material himself (assuming he's for real and i have no reason to doubt it). That's the beauty and danger of this evidence, and the reason why the TruthSims are so forcefully outing themselves. :)
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
When does it become cherry picking?

Good witnesses should supposedly be ignored because they represent
too small a number?

You are saying the witness count holds more credibility than the quality of witness?

MM
Click to expand...
Witness testimony is notoriously weak because people remember details differently, and imperfectly. There will be significant differences between individuals' recollection of events. In the legal world using witness testimony means going out there and interviewing the entire body of witnesses to piece together a coherent line of events, (corroboration). It's not so much that quantity is important as CIT's neglecting 90% of the witness body is an indication of either severe incompetence, or outright sample biasing rendering any case they could ever hope to bring to court null and void. Afterall, if you're arguing the importance of quality of the testimony, one has to wonder what kinds of quality testimony they skipped out on by shunning such a significant body of witnesses to the curb without a second thought.

If you think their treatment is acceptable be my guest but it won't fly in the real world legal system. I already had this discussion with CE weeks ago.
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
You fail to prove that the CIT quality witnesses merely painted circles around the aircraft flightpath.

MM
Click to expand...

Whats a CIT quality witness? One whose story can be misrepresented to fit CITs fantasy?
And why we prove anything? Its not us thats making ridiculous accusations. Thats CIT and their evidence fail to pass a credibility test. You have to look at Morins evidence to see they are wrong.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
Do do still think Morin is a SoC witness
Click to expand...


Of course not. Never did. You pretend that he is a SoC witness, remember?

There are no SoC witnesses with nearly the same quality any of the NoC witnesses shown in NSA, like Terry Morin, have. Interviewed on stage, clarifying interviews done in 2001. None.
 
Last edited:
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