CIT is done, it is time for them to go home.

Originally posted by Soloist


My point is that the conclusions were already pre-determined, and the people seemed to be played into something that might not have agreed to otherwise.

It's dishonest.

Period.

You are wrong and you are LYING about us and our "motive" that you have no basis to judge since you don't know us or the circumstances surrounding us obtaining this world historical testimony.

No conclusions were "pre-determined" and we had no plans to make a documentary until AFTER we obtained these interviews.

These are the facts.

I only stated that they likely would not have given the interviews if they were already aware of the implications regarding where they ALL saw the plane.

It was not our responsibility to tell them where the plane was SUPPOSED to have been nor is it deceptive for us to not have informed them of this BEFORE getting their testimony.

Our goal was to obtain their OBJECTIVE testimony regarding where they saw the plane and the only way to accomplish this was by NOT telling them what the official reports say.

Yes their testimony proves a government conspiracy.

I know this is hard to accept and I am sorry to break the news to you but clearly it is not our fault so stop trying to blame us for it.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

You are wrong and you are LYING about us and our "motive" that you have no basis to judge since you don't know us or the circumstances surrounding us obtaining this world historical testimony.

God, could you be possibly be a little more over-dramatic?

No conclusions were "pre-determined" and we had no plans to make a documentary until AFTER we obtained these interviews.

So ... then why do it in the first place? If nothing was pre-determined????

You were showing people pictures of different planes, colors, etc... you're trying to tell everyone here that you just spent money and time to just do this on your own? For no reason???

Do you see the fault in logic there?

C'mon now...

I only stated that they likely would not have given the interviews if they were already aware of the implications regarding where they ALL saw the plane.

That is NOT what you said, all one has to do is merely watch the section of the interview I posted.

It was not our responsibility to tell them where the plane was SUPPOSED to have been nor is it deceptive for us to not have informed them of this BEFORE getting their testimony.

You still don't get it. Wow. Either that or your simply floundering.

Our goal was to obtain their OBJECTIVE testimony regarding where they saw the plane and the only way to accomplish this was by NOT telling them what the official reports say.

You could have told them what you were up to. But you didn't. That's just the same as lying to someone.

Yes their testimony proves a government conspiracy.

Hardly. Testimony alone doesn't prove anything, and testimony while being duped is even more suspect.

Originally posted by Soloist


So ... then why do it in the first place? If nothing was pre-determined????

You were showing people pictures of different planes, colors, etc... you're trying to tell everyone here that you just spent money and time to just do this on your own? For no reason???

Do you see the fault in logic there?

C'mon now...

I am telling you that we went to find out and report exactly where the witnesses saw the plane.

Of course we SUSPECTED that it was on the north side due to Lagasse's previous emails with Dick Eastman and the fact that Robert had already told us this over the phone.

But we were concerned with confirmation, corroboration, and validation in person on video in order to provide the evidence and prove our suspicions.

Funny how you are actually faulting us for such a thing.

That is NOT what you said, all one has to do is merely watch the section of the interview I posted.

Yes it is what I said and what I meant. I'm sorry if you have comprehension problems but this is the fact.

You still don't get it. Wow. Either that or your simply floundering.

I get it perfectly.

You are erroneously accusing us of deceiving the witnesses when the fact is that we were completely honest.

Our intentions were to obtain and report their testimony and to make sure it was as pure and objective as possible.

This is what we achieved and it so happens to prove a military deception.

Sorry!

You could have told them what you were up to. But you didn't. That's just the same as lying to someone.

Am I talking to a wall?

We told them EXACTLY what we were "up to".

We simply wanted them to tell us what they saw.

They did.

It proves a conspiracy.

Hardly. Testimony alone doesn't prove anything, and testimony while being duped is even more suspect.

Independent corroborated testimony is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Nobody was duped and this is 100% clear from the interviews and why you have failed to provide an example of this or even articulate how you think we accomplished such a thing.

CIT has done a lot of research to prove 77 hit the Pentagon. They have many witnesses that confirm 77 hit the Pentagon. I use their work to show 77 hit the Pentagon. It is ironic; their own witnesses debunk their implied conclusions.

I enjoy their fantasy ideas, they have no real paths or theories about 9/11. They just do the basic research and let you decide what is going on; like FAUX news or CNN.

Their videos confirm 77 hit the lampposts because the flight path goes right through them.

The also tie together key witnesses for a continuity of flight path. Paik points down the road towards the Pentagon, and Morin next to the Annex says 77 was 50 feet above the Annex and parallel, then as he watches and can barely see the tail as 77 get close to the Pentagon, Boger picks up 77 and watches it hit right next to him, unable to react in time and run, he watches it hit! 77 was going over 700 feet a second! Paik even places 77 near the VOT tower, close enough to hit it! This continuity of a path is so important when verifying witness statements these 3 dovetail to form a path confirming what 77 did on 9/11. CIT uses these witnesses, but only cherry picks the parts to make up a story of a fly over, and some impossible flight path north of the CITGO (NoC) station. With Paik’s testimony, what CIT calls hard evidence, the NoC flight path is virtually impossible.

It is cool seeing the CIT, virtual amateurs at interpreting witness statements; flail as they misinterpret each witness to fit their ideas in to a fantasy.


INSULT REMOVED



[edit on 25-4-2008 by SkepticOverlord]