CIT skeptics finally admit north side approach is possible after all!

reply to post by discombobulator


1. She had already said she didn't remember. This is why we do not cite her as a witness at all. Your example fails.

2. We don't cite Sucherman as a north side witness. This is not an example of us leading the witness at all. Sucherman's account is irreconcilable either way anyway. Another fail.


If you didn't realize it.....we cite one simple, single, very general corroborated claim as proof that 9/11 was an inside job.

This is the fact that the plane was on the north side of the gas station.

If you can not demonstrate how we "led" witnesses into making this claim you clearly have nothing to refute this critical evidence and therefore no point.

Naturally if we did lead any of them you should be able to easily get one of them to accuse us of this or of misrepresenting their testimony.

You have none.

Complete fail.

Whatever man..........You are absolutely ridiculous for one simple reason. You really must think we are all retarded.
If the scenario you present here is indeed fact, then why has it not been presented this clearly back in even 02.......it took long enough for such intelligent people to present such a simple explanation.....wow you guys really are something.......nice try though
Just so you know the plan for controll WILL fail......we are smarter than you are because we have not been brainwashed...........plan got a kink in it when people started turning off their T.Vs didnt it.........GET READY FOR THE REVOLUTION SCUMBAG

Originally posted by discombobulator
1.) Their literal take on my words ("I had just come up from the underpass") paints a not entirely accurate portrayal of my position. I was definitely a bit closer to the Pentagon then their characterization. Perhaps closer to the Dubil-Narayanan-Benedetto cluster.

BTW, if he was closer to Narayanan, why did he place Sucherman ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PENTAGON ON 110??? See our interview with Vin Narayanan.

About a year after 9/11 (9/5/02) they did an online Q & A. Sucherman states the following...

Joel: I was on the road that runs that runs to the Pentagon, listening to the WTC coverage, before I heard this huge roar coming from the West. I looked up and saw and American Airlines passenger jet plane directly in front of me.

Then a reader asks...

Los Angeles, CA: I haven't been to D.C. in a while, but I seem to remember that the highways around the Pentagon are very close to the building. Were you guys on the side where the plane came in? If so, how did the plane avoid crushing cars on the street? What kind of clearance are we talking about?

Only thing is only Vin chimes in as one of the guys on the highway "on the side where the plane came in"...

Vin Narayanan and Joel Sucherman: Vin: I was on the side where the plane came in. The highway is about 50 yards from the Pentagon. The overhanging exit sign that the jet hit on the way down was 15-20 feet above the ground. The jet came in low and fast, it's tail clipped the overhanging exit sign on the way in, before hitting the Pentagon wall. In a sick way, I can say that whatever skill the pilot had saved my life, because if he had miscalculated by even a few feet, he would have crashed into the middle of a busy rush hour and potentially have caused more damage.

So Joel sat silently during that question, Vin jumps in as if he was the only one to be on that side. And then, 6/7 yrs later he doesn't remember his co-worker being next to him in the "cluster" during this very emotional/traumatic event they supposedly both shared and later conduct a Q & A over and instead places him on the other side of the Pentagon.

cgi1.usatoday.com...



[edit on 2-10-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Faulty logic does not refute scientifically validated evidence.

Great. What "scientifically validated evidence" do you have? I've yet to see anything from the Tree Fort that isn't a twisted, convoluted cherry-picked and gerrymandered hint of shadow of its former self statement from anyone. You take things out of context and ignore other elements of their testimony you don't like and call that "scientific"?

THAT is not scientific. It might pass for "science" in the Tree Fort, but not in the real world.

Most of your "witnesses" state they saw the aircraft hit the building. They *saw* it hit the building. They stated so.

Mike Walter *saw* it hit the building.
Lagasse *saw* it hit the building.
Brooks *saw* it hit the building.
Boger *saw* it hit the building.

Originally posted by pinch
You take things out of context and ignore other elements of their testimony you don't like and call that "scientific"?

This has not been done.

You are now using circular logic which is yet another logical fallacy.

The north side approach and the impact claim are mutually exclusive.

They can not both be true.

You must choose one.

There are many SCIENTIFIC reasons to choose the north side approach.

The most obvious being physical proximity to the plane.

They were all much closer to the plane as it passed by them dozens of feet away compared to when it reached the building many hundreds of feet away.

Agreed?

If you accept the impact you are accepting that all of these witnesses simultaneously hallucinated the plane in the same place.

If you accept the north side approach it proves deliberate deception in regards to the impact.

What is more logical or "scientific"? Mass hallucination or mass deception?

Furthermore the official flight path is aeronautically impossible.

Logic and evidence proves a deception on 9/11.

Sorry pinch but your boss has been proven a fraud and your war mongering based on a lie.





[edit on 2-10-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Craig, you seem confused. You accuse others of faulty logic, but do you REALLY fail to see how you are coming across as the KING of faulty logic in these 9/11 threads? Let me show you what quite a few of us are seeing and please, pretend for a second that you are not the one responsible for these posts; but try, if you can, to come at it from an objective angle.


1.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT Witness accounts are subjective and have A LOT of room for error due to perspective and many other factors.

(oh, and let's not also forget that there have been times in history, particularly during traumatic times, when there has been misconceptions from multiple witnesses... even masses ~ meaning more than 13 witnesses)

2.

It is what all of the witnesses unanimously report proving there was a deliberate deception initiated to convince people the plane hit the building.

please see 1.

3.

There is no way that 13 people all hallucinated the plane on the north side of the station.

please see 1.

4.

This doesn't diminish the conclusive evidence we provide proving the north side approach one bit.

this conclusive evidence is based on witness accounts.. please see 1.

5.

Their unanimous placement of the plane proves they were deliberately deceived into believing the plane hit.

please see 1.

6.

But this mistake is completely irrelevant to the north side evidence

.. there is no north side evidence, only witness accounts. please see 1.

(anyway, you get the point. You admit the premise from which your theory is derived is faulty, yet you use the faulty premise as proof for your account... not very logical and actually is why ppl end up going round and round in circles with you.. it isn't THEIR faulty logic that causes this, it is YOURS)

Sgt Lagasse would even bet his life on it.

I remember when I was a child, someone messed w/ the thermostat in our home. I knew it was me and so when my parents lined my sis' and myself up to question, I went ahead and said I did it. I said that I "bumped" it w/ my elbow. My parents did not believe me even though to this day, I have the memory of bumping it with my elbow. Being an adult now w/ a different perspective, I can understand why something I REMEMBERED could not have been true... I was much too small (as far as height) to be able to "bump" it w/ my elbow, yet the memory IS there. If I didn't know any better, because of FACTUAL EVIDENCE that it was impossible, I would bet my very life that I had indeed bumped my elbow on the thermostat because I DO have the memory of it. False memories are a fact, ya know, and many people willingly, yet still mistakenly, stake their life on false memories. The memories can still be false despite the conviction.

Please see 1.




Now the following is from post #9 in this thread... this is a side question actually that I hope you don't mind answering. You say:

Yes there are more witnesses but most were not in a position to see the Pentagon at all!

But I am hard pressed to believe that both witnesses located in the area of #1 in your picture could be certain of whether the plane was located on the N or S side of the citgo considering where they were. Also, remember quote 1 in this post before you answer this question.

Anyway, just pointing out where I find flaws in your logic


[edit on 2-10-2008 by justamomma]

I have put my 2 cents in on this before, there are too many other things to reconcile, as there were witnesses who worked at the Rosenthal dealership on Columbia Pike about 2.5 - 3 miles from the impact that I personally had to argue with briefly when getting a car service there shortly after it happened I argued based upon what was initially put out there as the official flight path coming from 395 but they swore they saw a very low flying large aircraft pretty much zooming over their heads above the height almost of light poles following "COLUMBIA PIKE" and I think there was an interview with someone working at the tire shop near the Naval Annex around 2 miles or so from there that clearly said he had to almost duck for fear this aircraft was going to hit him anything following that path would clearly put it slightly left of the Citgo looking towards the Pentagon......I think that is the guy in the vid above, but even for the lay person that saw the perspective of the hole that day or immediately following, if you stood on the hill overlooking the Pentagon you had to scratch your head and try and figure out how could the plane have come from 395, make the left turn and immediatly, sharply turn right and at the same time get as low (almost precision) to impact, I just say look for more witnesses and go there yourself and attempt to resolve the path, it just does not seem physically plausible looking at the Pentagon from the hill for all of these adjustments in the flight to occur in that short distance.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by pinch
You take things out of context and ignore other elements of their testimony you don't like and call that "scientific"?

This has not been done.

various "mumbo jumbo" snipped

Sorry pinch but your boss has been proven a fraud and your war mongering based on a lie.
[edit on 2-10-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Your handwaving and pretending-to-be-a-jedi mind tricks might work on Dom or Aldo and the other Guys in the fort, but not here.

Your "evidence" is nothing but statements cherrypicked and twisted to match what you want to sell.

Nothing scientific about it. You planted ideas with leading questions (this has been documented exhaustively with questions like "Some people saw a light colored aircraft. You didn't see one like that?" so drop your fake indignation), ignored crucial elements of peoples testimony (i.e. I saw the plane hit the building) while not being man enough or have enough balls to, to their face, tell them "No, you've been lied to and manipulated and you hallucinated the impact. It never happened. No plane ever hit the building". Instead, you sit there on tape like a goofus and say "Wow" when they relate their experience of watching the aircraft hit the building.

Real scientific there, Columbo.

Go back and read the OC Weekly article. You need something to ground yourself every now and then and that'll help. Bring you back to earth so you stop believing your own BS.


[edit on 2-10-2008 by pinch]

Originally posted by justamomma

(oh, and let's not also forget that there have been times in history, particularly during traumatic times that there have been misconceptions from multiple witnesses... even masses ~ meaning more than 13 witnesses)

Oh yeah?

"Misconceptions" from "masses" who all corroborate each other?

Prove it.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Craig,

You prove:

FDR was planted (and wrong)
Bodies were planted.
DNA was doctored
Airplane parts were planted
Bombs were planted by civilians
Light poles were planted
Lloyd was planted

Oh boy should I go on?

Please Craig, you have FAR more to prove than anyone else.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITOh yeah?

"Misconceptions" from "masses" who all corroborate each other?

Prove it.

Let me ask you a question (and play with me here please because I AM going somewhere... oh, and answer honestly)...

Would you believe someone who said that the sun came down to earth out of the sky and "danced around" all over the place right before their eyes?

Why is so much time spent debunking this thread without even addressing the topic at hand?

The question here is not "then what happened to Flight 77," or, "then who planted the debris" etc.

The question is did the plane approach from north or south of the Citgo station and if the plane did approach from the north could that flight path be reconciled with the physical damage and FDR data?

That's it, nothing more nothing less . . . except every pseudo-skeptic here has refused to address this.

So I am calling you out now, truther and debunker alike, to answer this question for the record:

IF Flight 77 approached the Pentagon from north of the Citgo, could it have made the physical damage at the Pentagon or be reconciled with the data from the FDR?

This is a yes or no question. You do not have to believe that the flight passed north to answer this question. I am asking IF it did pass north, could it have caused the damage etc.

I say it is impossible to reconcile the damage and FDR data IF the plane did pass north of the CItgo, so for me that’s a NO.

reply to post by justamomma


I asked YOU to back up YOUR claim.

Now you are trying to set up a completely irrelevant straw man argument.

No I will not play.

Eh, screw it. I am not known for patience . Based on WELL OVER 13 witness accounts, the sun came down from the sky and "danced around" on october 13, 1917 near Fatima, Portugal. There were even skeptical reporters who reported witnessing the event. Now, me being the logical person that I am thinks something is amiss. I wouldn't call them all liars, but logically, based on the evidence that the sun is a star permanently fixed in the sky, this MASS WITNESSED event was impossible and did not happen.

Based on YOUR logic though, I should believe that the sun can come down from the sky and "put on a show".

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITI asked YOU to back up YOUR claim.

Now you are trying to set up a completely irrelevant straw man argument.

No I will not play.

hardly strawman, Craig. This is a well known event that was reported by MANY witnesses.. far more than 13; in fact tens of thousands of witnesses. I KNOW that you believe the sun can descend from the sky and "dance" since you prefer, as shown by your die hard belief in your theory of the 9/11 event at the pentagon, to go off of 13 witness accounts over the evidence of the plane's descent as marked by the path of destruction. Word of mouth clearly trumps physical evidence to you.



[edit on 2-10-2008 by justamomma]

reply to post by justamomma


So nothing happened at all and these people lied?

I don't believe that the sun came down out of the sky and danced for the ppl, no. Do you??

I believe that the power of suggestion really IS a greater influence than most give it credit for though.

[edit on 2-10-2008 by justamomma]

reply to post by justamomma


Your analogy is irrelevant because

1....There is nothing impossible about a plane flying on the north side of the station as this thread demonstrates.

2...The witnesses we present are completely INDEPENDENT and were not gathered together to wait and watch for a religious "miracle".


Are you suggesting the people who believed in the miracle all lied or all simultaneously hallucinated the same thing?

Is that is your explanation for the north side witnesses?



God I hate irrelevant analogies.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITYour analogy is irrelevant because

1....There is nothing impossible about a plane flying on the north side of the station as this thread demonstrates.

2...The witnesses we present are completely INDEPENDENT and were not gathered together to wait and watch for a religious "miracle".


Are you suggesting the people who believed in the miracle all lied or all simultaneously hallucinated the same thing?

Is that is your explanation for the north side witnesses?



God I hate irrelevant analogies.

But THOUSANDS (as many as 100,000) witnesses claim this happened. You said and I quote:

"Misconceptions" from "masses" who all corroborate each other? Prove it.

I am not suggesting that they lied or simultaneously hallucinated the same thing.... what I am STATING is that the sun is a star that CANNOT come down to the earth and "dance" around without leaving behind, well, a void where the earth once was Physical evidence trumps eye witness accounts to me personally.

The eye witness accounts may have been given independently, but they all had ONE thing in common ... THE INTERVIEWER. Power of suggestion is, indeed, very powerful.

Again, physical evidence trumps eye witness accounts in my book, particularly when all the witness accounts were given to the same person interviewing the witnesses. Not as independent as you would want us to believe

It is only irrelevant to you because it brings up an all too relevant point. Do you or do you not believe the sun came down from the sky and "danced"? Not answering my question makes me feel mighty smug Craig



[edit on 2-10-2008 by justamomma]

Originally posted by justamomma
Again, physical evidence trumps eye witness accounts in my book, particularly when all the witness accounts were given to the same person interviewing the witnesses. Not as independent as you would want us to believe

Not as independent nor very honest and forthcoming either. We are talking about a guy here who purposely hid his intentions from the people he "interviewed" and freely admits this while chuckling about the matter in an interview.

Independent? No.
Honest? No.
Laughable? You bet!