IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 26th August 2022, 05:59 AM   #1
JessicasCrime
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 60
Vidéo Response to David Chandler's attack on Sgt. Lagasse

https://odysee.com/@vindicatinglloyd...UdCbEM9D26mHVy

Can videos be embedded here that aren't YouTube?
JessicasCrime is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2022, 06:03 AM   #2
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 62,417
http://www.internationalskeptics.com....php?do=bbcode
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2022, 07:33 AM   #3
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,602
Originally Posted by JessicasCrime View Post
https://odysee.com/@vindicatinglloyd...UdCbEM9D26mHVy

Can videos be embedded here that aren't YouTube?
Anyone that criticizes CIT is way ahead of the truthers. I'm not watching any of those videos, although. I have spent too many hours "debating" ruby grey and her witness statements. Witness statements especially when conducted some 8 years after the fact have to be regarded with a large amount of salt. People forget, that's a fact.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2022, 08:18 AM   #4
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 105,774
Originally Posted by JessicasCrime View Post
https://odysee.com/@vindicatinglloyd...UdCbEM9D26mHVy

Can videos be embedded here that aren't YouTube?
No.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2022, 10:23 AM   #5
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
 
Stellafane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 8,363
Jeezus, the CIT guys are still at it? Of all the Truther crowd, I thought they were the most pathetic, and that's saying something. The fact that they haven't moved on with their lives is just plain sad.

EDIT: Kind of funny aside, I did a Google search on "citizen investigation team" (in quotes for specificity) and got the following message:

Quote:
It looks like there aren’t many great results for this search
When you stop and think about it, Google is correct!
__________________
"Stellafane! My old partner in crime!" - Kelly J

Last edited by Stellafane; 26th August 2022 at 10:29 AM.
Stellafane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2022, 10:28 AM   #6
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,101
Originally Posted by JessicasCrime View Post
https://odysee.com/@vindicatinglloyd...UdCbEM9D26mHVy

Why post a video with no comment? What is the conclusion? Do you understand CIT are idiot investigator? Do you realize David Chandler is a 9/11 truth nut?

Can videos be embedded here that aren't YouTube?
Flight 77 was not where the video seems to imply it was...

Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and flew on the Pentagon side of the Gas Station.

Thus CIT failed to account for RADAR data, FDR data, and eyewitnesses who agree with the Radar and FDR.

The damage to the Pentagon was on the course depicted in the FDR, thus making this video, and CIT claims nonsense.

CIT are failed investigators spreading dumbed down lies about 9/11. Lies only gullible people believe, because they fail to investigate past what they want to hear.


You have had years to study the FDR, and Radar data. RADAR and FDR define the real flight path. Real flight path vs, failed memories from CIT cherry-picked witnesses and fantasy delusions of CIT.

Have you tried to prove the FDR and RADAR data are false? Do you realize the RADAR data is from 5 different Radars and is recorded each day so the FAA can track flights, and in case of Accidents or events, the NTSB can use the Data... why has CIT and you failed to debunk RADAR and FDR, let alone DNA recovered in the Pentagon of all on Flt 77 save the small boy...

oops, CIT failed
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 26th August 2022 at 10:40 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2022, 01:14 PM   #7
JessicasCrime
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 60
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Anyone that criticizes CIT is way ahead of the truthers. I'm not watching any of those videos, although. I have spent too many hours "debating" ruby grey and her witness statements. Witness statements especially when conducted some 8 years after the fact have to be regarded with a large amount of salt. People forget, that's a fact.
1) CIT found their witnesses from the interviews done by the center for military history in the first few months following the 9/11.

2) For this particular video it focuses on William legacy who testified to the same thing he said to CIT less than 3 months after 9/11

3) yes, people definitely do forget things and they also remember the same event differently when of course logically, only one version of that event can be correct.. This happens all the time... Anyone who's married can attest to that.

You know what doesn't happen? Dozens of people who don't know each other all remembering an event in the exact same way, and that event happening in some other way.


4) People also remember with great clarity events of great importance. The first time they kissed their spouse, the birth of their child, the death of a parent.

Whether a Boeing 757 jumbo jet was flying within a couple hundred feet in front of them with a view unobstructed by buildings or trees or anything, over a national landmark where they work and crashing into the Pentagon, or 1100 feet in the complete opposite direction hidden behind a giant building and then disappearing behind another one.

No one would "forget" that.
JessicasCrime is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2022, 07:50 PM   #8
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,101
Originally Posted by JessicasCrime View Post
1) CIT found their witnesses from the interviews done by the center for military history in the first few months following the 9/11.

2) For this particular video it focuses on William legacy who testified to the same thing he said to CIT less than 3 months after 9/11

3) yes, people definitely do forget things and they also remember the same event differently when of course logically, only one version of that event can be correct.. This happens all the time... Anyone who's married can attest to that.

You know what doesn't happen? Dozens of people who don't know each other all remembering an event in the exact same way, and that event happening in some other way.


4) People also remember with great clarity events of great importance. The first time they kissed their spouse, the birth of their child, the death of a parent.

Whether a Boeing 757 jumbo jet was flying within a couple hundred feet in front of them with a view unobstructed by buildings or trees or anything, over a national landmark where they work and crashing into the Pentagon, or 1100 feet in the complete opposite direction hidden behind a giant building and then disappearing behind another one.

No one would "forget" that.
There was no NoC flight path... The FDR and RADAR define the flight path, as does damage, and the exact course of 77 as it flew into the Pentagon, the same course in the FDR...

Thus, it does not matter if the witnesses say 77 was on the NoC, there is no way they can know how far 77 was from them, they do not have laser guns for distance, eyes are fooled.

An aircraft they saw was big, and thus looks closer...

I have seen many CIT witnesses on CIT Video pointing exactly to the real flight path as defined by damage, FDR, and Radar.

Thus Sgt Lagasse can say anything, does not make his testimony days after, weeks after, even years after correct.

If Sgt Lagasse saw 77, it was on the real flight path, if he says it was on the idiotic delusional NoC, he is wrong...


Please draw your flight path, or stop posting BS from CIT who appear to be the worse investigators in history, and who seem to of made up the NoC while high.


Your dozen of witnesses CIT interviewed, are pointing to the real flight path... are you unable to orientate a map? Do you realize they are pointing to the real flight path, not the NoC?

When will you debunk RADAR from over 5 sites, and the FDR found in the Pentagon on the exact course of damage listed in the FDR... plus how did 77 hit the lampposts on the NoC, your fantasy based on your trust in CIT idiots.

How does Sgt Lagasse explain the lamppost damaged by 77? Did CIT tell him the lampposts were knocked down?

Please draw the flight path which includes the downed lampposts based on your failed belief of his testimony... good luck... BTW, it takes over 7 or 8 gs or more to do that based on your faith in CIT and Sgt L's testimony... which is impossible. You might need some math to figure out you have been fooled by the idiots, CIT.

Did you take advance math?

Thus, you have to debunk the FDR.
and the Radar data from 5 sites.
and debunk the damage on the course 77 was on as confirmed in the FDR.

OOPS...

oops, he is a CIT witness, and he points to the impact point... CIT debunked again, by this guy, and FDR, damage on course, and Radar... not to mention DNA...

You might want to study CIT videos and try to see geographically, why many of the CIT witnesses point south... but then that takes time and effort - something 9/11 truth cult members fail to do after falling into the pit of BS, ignorance and delusions from idiots like CIT.

As for remembering events??? have you studied how the brain and our senses work? You might want to study those issues before putting your trust in testimony gathered by the dumbest 9/11 truth investigators in the known Universe. If you need help see if Dr. Matthew Kabrisky can help you understand how the brain works... sad to say he passed in 2011... thus you are lost in the fantasy world of CIT and trusting all to one witness who is wrong due to real evidence... aka, FDR, Radar, damage, and more.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2022, 05:57 AM   #9
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,602
Originally Posted by JessicasCrime View Post
1) CIT found their witnesses from the interviews done by the center for military history in the first few months following the 9/11.

2) For this particular video it focuses on William legacy who testified to the same thing he said to CIT less than 3 months after 9/11

3) yes, people definitely do forget things and they also remember the same event differently when of course logically, only one version of that event can be correct.. This happens all the time... Anyone who's married can attest to that.

You know what doesn't happen? Dozens of people who don't know each other all remembering an event in the exact same way, and that event happening in some other way.


4) People also remember with great clarity events of great importance. The first time they kissed their spouse, the birth of their child, the death of a parent.

Whether a Boeing 757 jumbo jet was flying within a couple hundred feet in front of them with a view unobstructed by buildings or trees or anything, over a national landmark where they work and crashing into the Pentagon, or 1100 feet in the complete opposite direction hidden behind a giant building and then disappearing behind another one.

No one would "forget" that.
I really can't add more than beachnut has already proven your points incorrect. Although I will say that Lagasse may be an honorable man, but he is incorrect in his description of the NoSide course. The jet will be unable to make the turn necessary for it to impact the Pentagon an event that Lagasse indicated to all those who interview him.
One more aspect, IIRC CIT was promoting the theory that AA 77 did not hit the Pentagon, but instead flew over the building. How can you use an interview that does not corroborate that event? You don't understand logic, just truther nonsense. Wake up and do some real research instead of sniffing around CT websites or CT individuals .
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2022, 07:15 AM   #10
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,665
Originally Posted by JessicasCrime View Post
You know what doesn't happen? Dozens of people who don't know each other all remembering an event in the exact same way, and that event happening in some other way.
"Remembering an event in the exact same way"? Are you kidding?! Look at the the plotted witness flight paths and tell me how you can say they are all the "exact same path"!

Look at the every bottom flight path and explain how a plane made those turns to impact the Pentagon.

Gamolon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2022, 09:31 AM   #11
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,233
Originally Posted by JessicasCrime View Post
...
4) People also remember with great clarity events of great importance. The first time they kissed their spouse, the birth of their child, the death of a parent. ...
No. Just no. If "with great clarity" is supposed to mean "with high precision and reliability"

Such memories may be exceptionally vivid, detailed, present, easily recalled - but still subject to all the psychological problems with human perception, memorization and recall. In fact, events with such an emotional impact may be even more prone to getting distorted in memory.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2022, 01:18 PM   #12
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,301
Originally Posted by JessicasCrime View Post
Whether a Boeing 757 jumbo jet was flying within a couple hundred feet in front of them with a view unobstructed by buildings or trees or anything, over a national landmark where they work and crashing into the Pentagon, or 1100 feet in the complete opposite direction hidden behind a giant building and then disappearing behind another one.

No one would "forget" that.
Sure they would. There's probably a clinical name for it, but people in general are poor judges of speed, distance, and heading. I happen to be good at these things, and I'm at best correct 50% of the time when rushed into making an assessment.

The compounding factor is surprise. The human brain processes information differently when encountering visual information for the first time. Things look bigger, faster, slower, and or closer than they actually are. This truth is the basis for every Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, and UFO sighting in history.

The CIT crap is the Loch Ness Monster of 9-11 Truth.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2022, 08:52 PM   #13
JessicasCrime
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 60
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
"Remembering an event in the exact same way"? Are you kidding?! Look at the the plotted witness flight paths and tell me how you can say they are all the "exact same path"!

Look at the every bottom flight path and explain how a plane made those turns to impact the Pentagon.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...e1b47a7427.jpg
ALL north of CITGO.

No one has EVER come forward to say that they saw the plane fly over the stone bridge.

60+ witnesses independently corroborate a North of Citgo flight path. The odds of this happening and not being true or ZERO. NIL.

And yes, that means the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

You want to fixate on the word exactly to "win", then you won.
JessicasCrime is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2022, 08:58 PM   #14
JessicasCrime
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 60
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
I really can't add more than beachnut has already proven your points incorrect. Although I will say that Lagasse may be an honorable man, but he is incorrect in his description of the NoSide course. The jet will be unable to make the turn necessary for it to impact the Pentagon an event that Lagasse indicated to all those who interview him.
One more aspect, IIRC CIT was promoting the theory that AA 77 did not hit the Pentagon, but instead flew over the building. How can you use an interview that does not corroborate that event? You don't understand logic, just truther nonsense. Wake up and do some real research instead of sniffing around CT websites or CT individuals .
There's a reason why the "skeptics" try to focus only on Lagasse. You've got a whole lot of other people who saw the same thing as he did, but you and I both know that you won't be able to explain away that many corroborating witnesses, so you won't.

You can start with Sean Boger who was in the heliport, Chad Brooks who was also at the Citgo, Maria de la Cerda in Arlington Cemetary, the numerous Arlington Cemetary employees and maybe how they all managed to describe the same North of Citgo flight path, independently, and this not being the flight path.

You can't. But you won't be alone, no one has ever even tried.
JessicasCrime is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2022, 09:00 PM   #15
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,483
Originally Posted by JessicasCrime View Post

60+ witnesses independently corroborate a North of Citgo flight path. The odds of this happening and not being true or ZERO. NIL.
What metric did you use to determine these odds. This reads like a bare assertion to me.

Here's a link concerning multiple witnesses being dead wrong about what they saw, or more accurately, what they thought they saw.
Quote:
And yes, that means the plane did not hit the Pentagon.
No, it doesn't mean that at all; you've made another bare assertion.
__________________
" Glory to our Allies . . . Glory to Ukraine!"
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2022, 09:00 PM   #16
JessicasCrime
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 60
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
No. Just no. If "with great clarity" is supposed to mean "with high precision and reliability"

Such memories may be exceptionally vivid, detailed, present, easily recalled - but still subject to all the psychological problems with human perception, memorization and recall. In fact, events with such an emotional impact may be even more prone to getting distorted in memory.
You are correct. There are many details that can become fuzzy.

I'll repeat the important part that you intentionally left out.

Quote:
Whether a Boeing 757 jumbo jet was flying within a couple hundred feet in front of them with a view unobstructed by buildings or trees or anything, over a national landmark where they work and crashing into the Pentagon, or 1100 feet in the complete opposite direction hidden behind a giant building and then disappearing behind another one.

No one would "forget" that.
It's beyond dishonest to say that Lagasse would mistake the position of a jumbo jet in this manner. And even if he did, his story is corroborated by dozens of witnesses. You'll ignore that as well, or come up with some cockamamie theory as to why the absolutely improbable is actually totally normal.

When dozens of people all describe the same event as happening in virtually the same way, the odds of said event not happening that way grow infinitesimally small.

Seems you don't really understand probability.

Last edited by JessicasCrime; 30th August 2022 at 09:05 PM.
JessicasCrime is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2022, 09:55 PM   #17
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,101
what caused the damage at the Pentagon in the sick fantasy world of CIT?

Originally Posted by JessicasCrime View Post
ALL north of CITGO.

No one has EVER come forward to say that they saw the plane fly over the stone bridge.

60+ witnesses independently corroborate a North of Citgo flight path. The odds of this happening and not being true or ZERO. NIL.

And yes, that means the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

You want to fixate on the word exactly to "win", then you won.
FDR wins, you were fooled by CIT, and might be unable to understand FDR, which you can't debunk.

Radar wins, you might not be able to comprehend Radar. You failed to debunk Radar. BTW, the C-130 crew saw 77, but did not see 77 leave the area, nor did the Tower by the airport next to the Pentagon see 77 leave after hitting the Pentagon. Means you are wrong due to evidence.

Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon, DNA from all but the small boy found in the Pentagon along the flight course in the FDR from Flight 77. You are spreading a fantasy lie that 77 did not hit the Pentagon due to ignorance of DNA, FDR, and Radar.


So in the demented dumbed down fantasy that 77 did not hit the Pentagon, what caused the damage in your fantasy world of woo?>


You don't have 60 witnesses for NoC. The CIT witnesses on video are pointing to the actually flight path stored on the FDR, and evidenced by Radar... you don't seem to know they are pointing to the flight path.

Sgt L is wrong, and 77 did hit the Pentagon, even Sgt L says so. oops

As you mock the murder of those in the Pentagon and on Flight 77 due to the act of failed humans, the terrorists mislead by UBL, you have been mislead by CIT with lies, dumbed down for the gullible.

You have no clue you failed, or why you have failed... sad

FDR proves that Lagasse did mistake the position of a jumbo jet, it is science, real data, not the perception of a human who is wrong.

Radar proves that Lagasse did mistake the position of a jumbo jet, it is science, real data, not the perception of a human who is wrong.

To have your CIT fantasy and lies, you have to prove the FDR and Radar are wrong. Something that requires actual knowledge based skills, not an opinion based on the idiots of CIT.


It appears the persistence of the fringe movement that blames the US for the 2001 terrorist attacks will be around for a while, as new conspiracy theorists discover "evidence", having no clue the "evidence", is dumbed down woo.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2022, 07:16 AM   #18
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,602
Originally Posted by JessicasCrime View Post
There's a reason why the "skeptics" try to focus only on Lagasse. You've got a whole lot of other people who saw the same thing as he did, but you and I both know that you won't be able to explain away that many corroborating witnesses, so you won't.

You can start with Sean Boger who was in the heliport, Chad Brooks who was also at the Citgo, Maria de la Cerda in Arlington Cemetary, the numerous Arlington Cemetary employees and maybe how they all managed to describe the same North of Citgo flight path, independently, and this not being the flight path.

You can't. But you won't be alone, no one has ever even tried.
You can only twist the words of Sean Bolger to make a case he "supports" the NoSide trajectory, but in reality, he doesn't.
You are avoiding the path of destruction into the Pentagon which doesn't support a NoSide trajectory. You avoid the evidence and continue to use eyewitness testimony, which is often incorrect, no matter how many you drag out. Hard evidence defeats any/all eyewitness testimony. This is precisely why I quit "debating" rubygray ignoring physical evidence in favor of eyewitness testimony the lowest form of case proving support.
And this is my last comment on eyewitness testimony in this thread.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2022, 08:17 AM   #19
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,233
Originally Posted by JessicasCrime View Post
You are correct. There are many details that can become fuzzy.

I'll repeat the important part that you intentionally left out.



It's beyond dishonest to say that Lagasse would mistake the position of a jumbo jet in this manner.
You literally admitted that "many details that can become fuzzy" right before asserting that "Lagasse would [not] mistake the position of a jumbo jet in this manner"

It's difficult to make up such blatant cognitive dissonance.

Originally Posted by JessicasCrime View Post
And even if he did, his story is corroborated by dozens of witnesses.
The majority of which reported that 77 hit the Pentagon, while none reported the 77 missed the Pentagon.

What does CIT say - did the plane hit or miss the Pentagon?

Originally Posted by JessicasCrime View Post
You'll ignore that as well, or come up with some cockamamie theory as to why the absolutely improbable is actually totally normal.

When dozens of people all describe the same event as happening in virtually the same way, the odds of said event not happening that way grow infinitesimally small.
Say again: What does CIT say - did the plane hit or miss the Pentagon?
And then: What do teir witnesses say?
What do you say - did the plane hit or miss the Pentagon?
Consequenty: Are you honoring, or ignoring your witnesses?

Originally Posted by JessicasCrime View Post
Seems you don't really understand probability.
There is one simple rule in probability theory:
The probability of an event happening, when we already know it has happened, is 1. That's 100%.
We know because we have actual, physical evidence. Several lines of independent yet converging evidence.
Which includes far more witnesses than the CIT mustered.

So what the CIT witnesses said - or what the CIT made of their accounts - is false. 100%.

Because, you know, when we have several lines of corroborating physical evidence, and a witness disagrees, the witness is wrong.
And 10 witnesses are wrong.

This is even before we look at what the witness statements actually were (CIT never released the full interviews of the more controversial ones!), and how they came about (years later, with leading questions...)
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2022, 10:41 PM   #20
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Robin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 14,001
North of Citgo witnesses?

William Lagasse
Chadwick Brooks
Robert Turcios
Sean Boger
Darrell Stafford
Darius Prather
Possibly George Aman

That's hardly "dozens"

Seven people found after an obsessive search for witnesses who claim this, a search which lasted for years. That isn't good evidence.

And, as I have pointed out many times, Lagasse expresses certainty that there were no damaged light poles on the bridge and we know for a fact there were. So we can't take his certainty in other areas as a sign he is right.

I can't believe anyone is still pushing this "north of Citgo" story.

Last edited by Robin; 8th September 2022 at 10:44 PM.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2022, 12:29 AM   #21
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,741
I thought the "north of citgo" theory died years ago with the release of the citgo gas station footage that caught the shadow of AAL77 flying overhead?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
For my complete compilation of evidence showing AAL77 hit the Pentagon -http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
For my compilation of evidence for UAL93 - http://ual93.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88
cjnewson88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2022, 10:16 AM   #22
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,602
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
I thought the "north of citgo" theory died years ago with the release of the citgo gas station footage that caught the shadow of AAL77 flying overhead?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
I'm sorry at what point in this video is the shadow supposed to appear. It is 2 hours long. There are multiple cameras pointing in different directions and viewing different scenery. Someone surely has a mark.

ETA: I seem to remember Ms North Side Course, rubygrey using this video and claiming the exact opposite, that it proves the NoSise.

Last edited by bknight; 9th September 2022 at 10:34 AM.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2022, 05:03 AM   #23
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,741
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
I'm sorry at what point in this video is the shadow supposed to appear. It is 2 hours long. There are multiple cameras pointing in different directions and viewing different scenery. Someone surely has a mark.

ETA: I seem to remember Ms North Side Course, rubygrey using this video and claiming the exact opposite, that it proves the NoSise.
4:25, on the "Single Pump Side" camera, center on the left side of the screen. The shadow appears on the grass area in the background.
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
For my complete compilation of evidence showing AAL77 hit the Pentagon -http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
For my compilation of evidence for UAL93 - http://ual93.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88
cjnewson88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2022, 06:36 AM   #24
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,602
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
4:25, on the "Single Pump Side" camera, center on the left side of the screen. The shadow appears on the grass area in the background.
Thanks, the video is poor quality and small size on my small screen lap, so I don't see it, but I'm not saying it isn't there.
Thanks
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2022, 07:53 PM   #25
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Robin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 14,001
Originally Posted by JessicasCrime View Post
It's beyond dishonest to say that Lagasse would mistake the position of a jumbo jet in this manner.
Why? Lagasse is completely convinced that there were no damaged light poles on the overpass, but we know there were. He appears to be convinced that the Arlington County After Action Report would back up his version of the events. It doesn't. He reported being blown backwards into his car, but later said he didn't really remember that happening.

When the plane had not yet cleared the Navy Annex, the flight paths would have seemed quite similar to his point of view, and he reports that his initial reaction was to flinch and get into the car, which would have made part of the flight path invisible to him anyway.

Everyone can misremember or misperceive, especially people who experienced great trauma at the time. Lagasse was at the beginning of a day that was more traumatic than most of us can even imagine.
Quote:
And even if he did, his story is corroborated by dozens of witnesses.
No, it was corroborated by 5 or 6 witnesses at the most, and contradicted by others. For example Terry Morin's account can't be consistent with Lagasse's if you look at the sight lines. Hemphill's account is different to Lagasse's Paik's account makes Lagasse's account very unlikely. There are some to whom it seemed that the plane came very close to the i395.

There is really very little going for the north of Citgo theory. Even if we didn't know about the light poles, the radar data, the flight recorder data, the evidence of the damage, and only looked at the witness statements then the north of Citgo theory would still seem unlikely.

With the rest of the evidence north of Citgo theories are very far fetched indeed.

Last edited by Robin; 29th September 2022 at 07:56 PM.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2022, 03:38 PM   #26
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Robin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 14,001
My rejoinder to the idea that all witnesses place the plane north of the Citgo station.

Not even all the witnesses claimed by CIT place the plane there. I have tried to be as accommodating to the NoC position as reasonably possible, for example I could reasonably have placed the Hemphill, Paik and Morin paths further south:


Last edited by Robin; 26th October 2022 at 03:44 PM.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:27 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.