Physics and math prove north of citgo flight path entirely possible

Originally posted by Boone 870
...will you address the contradictions between his statements and what is represented in the video?

Don't hold your breath. He never has before.

Originally posted by Boone 870


Nope, I didn't confront any witnesses, didn't feel like it really. However, I did have Ed Paik diagnose a check engine light of my vehicle and it turns out that it was only a vacuum line leak between the engine compartment and fuel filler neck.

Really?

I bet you are lying.

I bet you don't even know where he works.

How about Roberts placing the decoy jet over lane 1 in south parking?

Turbo blew me off... Craig is ducking and weaving all over the place... will you address the contradictions between his statements and what is represented in the video?

I am not ducking and weaving at all.

I am being honest about the available evidence while you are unreasonably expecting the witness to be 100% accurate down to the foot.

Originally posted by Boone 870
Nope, I didn't confront any witnesses, didn't feel like it really. However, I did have Ed Paik diagnose a check engine light of my vehicle and it turns out that it was only a vacuum line leak between the engine compartment and fuel filler neck.

You met with Paik and didnt ask him if he saw the aircraft south of Columbia pike, but spend almost everyday on P4T lurking and ATS arguing such points? Yeah, if anyone believes that, please let them know i have a bridge for sale.


Here's what i think...

You asked him since you had the opportunity and motive to do so (you argue such points almost everyday online), he confirmed the North Path, its understandable you do not wish to reveal such an encounter and instead claim you "didnt feel like it..."

Uh huh.. suuuuure...

Turbo blew me off...

Not everyone spends all their time on ATS to cater to you. Be patient young grasshopper.

Craig is ducking and weaving all over the place...

Matter of opinion. I disagree. I feel Craig directly addressed your concern. You just dont accept it while also refusing to confront witnesses who you met!

will you address the contradictions between his statements and what is represented in the video?

See reply above.

posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Not a single independent witness we spoke with supported SoC.

posted by adam_zapple
2 words: Lloyd England

posted by adam_zapple
Lloyd England doesn't corroborate either claim.

posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Uh wrong.

Perhaps you missed our latest interview with Lloyde.

The ONLY direct claim that Lloyde England has made regarding his location was north of the citgo.

He's pretty darn sure of it too!

posted by tezzajw
Surely, adam, you jest.

Are you referring to the same Lloyde Englande who changed his story and placed his taxi further North along the bridge than where it was allegedly struck?

Are you referring to the same Lloyde Englande who is the ONLY person on this planet to have witnessed the light pole smashing his windscreen. No other person on the planet has verified Lloyde's light pole story. He is completely alone with that one, all by himself with zero corroboration.

Not even the three Federal agents who were 'guarding' Lloyde England and his staged taxicab, will come forward and verify the light pole through the taxi windshield. They are not sticking their necks in a noose.





[edit on 1/13/09 by SPreston]

reply to post by RockHound757

Here's what i think...

Let me clear something up. I believe it was Ed, he wasn't wearing a name tag but it looked just like him.

Here's what I think...

CIT's recording of Roberts has been edited to omit statements that are contradictory to their theory and I also believe that Morin was referring to the edge of the Annex property and not the edge of the FOB. That's just a hunch.

Now that we've established our distrust for one another, let's get back to Roberts.

In his interview, he says that he witnessed the aircraft over lane 1 three times. He also said that it was over the intersection of I395 and Route 27.

Here's the important part... Robert specifically said no when CIT asked him if the plane was flying toward the airport.

CIT/PFT claim that their arc is witness compatible and mentions Roberts specifically, but it does not match what he says.

I'm hoping that you can help me understand why.

Originally posted by Boone 870
However, I did have Ed Paik diagnose a check engine light of my vehicle and it turns out that it was only a vacuum line leak between the engine compartment and fuel filler neck.

Originally posted by Boone 870
Let me clear something up. I believe it was Ed, he wasn't wearing a name tag but it looked just like him.

Backpeddle much?

CIT's recording of Roberts has been edited to omit statements that are contradictory to their theory and I also believe that Morin was referring to the edge of the Annex property and not the edge of the FOB. That's just a hunch.

Your "hunch" noted

Your refusal to confront witnesses while you were in Arlington because you "didnt feel like it..."... Noted

I'm hoping that you can help me understand why.

Craig tried, but you refuse to accept it. Or perhaps you dont "feel like" accepting it.

Edit: Fixed quote tags

[edit on 13-1-2009 by RockHound757]

Originally posted by Boone 870


Let me clear something up. I believe it was Ed, he wasn't wearing a name tag but it looked just like him.

Just as I thought!

Funny how you supposedly "thought" it was Ed but STILL didn't bother to ask him about what he saw on 9/11!

No doubt you simply knew he would confirm what he told us about the plane crossing to the north side of Columbia Pike so you were too nervous to say anything.

Well Ed wasn't working at A-One auto even back when we interviewed him in 2006 so he is not who helped you if you even really went there at all.

Here's what I think...

CIT's recording of Roberts has been edited to omit statements that are contradictory to their theory

Sorry but you have ZERO basis to make such an accusation since not a single witness we have spoken with has accused us of misrepresenting their claims.

Obviously if we did that we would have omitted the "lane 1" part.

and I also believe that Morin was referring to the edge of the Annex property and not the edge of the FOB. That's just a hunch.

Sorry but your "hunch" does not refute Terry Morin's direct statements claiming otherwise.

The security shack he was referring to since day one is in between the 4th and 5th wings as he always claimed.

posted by Boone 870
Let me clear something up. I believe it was Ed, he wasn't wearing a name tag but it looked just like him.

posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Just as I thought!

Funny how you supposedly "thought" it was Ed but STILL didn't bother to ask him about what he saw on 9/11!

No doubt you simply knew he would confirm what he told us about the plane crossing to the north side of Columbia Pike so you were too nervous to say anything.

Well Ed wasn't working at A-One auto even back when we interviewed him in 2006 so he is not who helped you if you even really went there at all.

Boone got caught lying again.

This is rich.



[edit on 1/13/09 by SPreston]

reply to post by SPreston

Boone got caught lying again.

Uhhh... check the time of the posts SPreston.

Point out how I was caught lying.

Boone..

Are you a Hog driver?

I apologize for being of topic. Just wondering since you kind of represent the fact in your avatar.

Ever work an RWR? Your avatar suggest so...

reply to post by jthomas


When you can interpret an audio interview and determine the correct
position of Morin, we'll talk.

reply to post by RockHound757

Craig tried, but you refuse to accept it. Or perhaps you dont "feel like" accepting it.

Yep, that was a great example of Craig's ducking and weaving.

I guess I'll just have to wait and see what Turbo makes of it.

Originally posted by Boone 870
Yep, that was a great example of Craig's ducking and weaving.

Again... it a matter of opinion you are arguing. I disagree with your conclusion as i also disagree with your "discipline" of "I didnt feel like it" when you had your chance to confront witnesses in Arlington.

Again i ask, are you a Hog Driver as your avatar may suggest? If not, why do you have such an avatar? Your posts suggest a "slacker" who makes excuse.

Case in point - You argue witness points daily online, but refuse to confront such witnesses when given the opportunity because you "dont feel like it".

Heres what i think...

You havent a clue about discipline... and try to portray such with your avatar.

Go ahead Boone, ask me about my avatar..

But be prepared to answer for yours.

Originally posted by RockHound757
Go ahead Boone, ask me about my avatar..

Alright, I'm not Boone, but I want to know about your avatar!

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by RockHound757
Go ahead Boone, ask me about my avatar..

Alright, I'm not Boone, but I want to know about your avatar!

hmmm... do i drill for oil? Am i an astronaut? Am i both?

One thing is for certain, my signature puts it all in perspective combined with my posts.

Only Boone will find out when he asks while explaining his avatar...


Edit to add: My teeth are much nicer looking though..

[edit on 13-1-2009 by RockHound757]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Funny how you supposedly "thought" it was Ed but STILL didn't bother to ask him about what he saw on 9/11!

That's not my style, Craig. I'm a fairly reserved person and a little on the shy side so don't go getting your knickers in a knot because I didn't talk to him.

In fact, 911files was sitting 20 feet in front of me at Spencer's book reading and I didn't introduce myself to him.


reply to post by RockHound757


I'm not a Hog driver.

Slacker???

Are you an astronaut or an actor as your avatar may suggest?

What's the story?

reply to post by Boone 870



Don't worry Boone, I'm not ignoring you. Just busy. Hang tight.

Originally posted by Boone 870
I'm not a Hog driver.

Yes, we know. It was a rhetorical question obviously. You may wish to change your avatar as to not misrepresent yourself to lurkers as your discipline is lacking to wear a Hog Driver avatar. But hey, feel free to be a wannabe.

Slacker???

Are you an astronaut or an actor as your avatar may suggest?

What's the story?

Well, i expose 911Files numerous times in this thread for his improper vector analysis and improper Sag calcs as he disappears with his tail between his legs while also refusing to debate Pilots For 9/11 Truth. Think thats an act? Or do you accept 911Files, "G-Force does not equal G-Load"? Tell us Boone. Who is putting on the act? Do you even know? Did you click the links for reference? Or did you not "feel like it"?

Tell us Boone, why do you lurk daily on Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forums, but refuse to engage?

Edit: Fixed quote tags

[edit on 13-1-2009 by RockHound757]

reply to post by RockHound757

Tell us Boone, why do you lurk daily on Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forums, but refuse to engage?

Well, dMole (I'm assuming), I feel it necessary to tiptoe while in unfriendly territory or risk having private information posted on the Internet for all to see. You've seen the "opposition" thread, can you blame me?

I'll address the rest of your post tomorrow.

ETA: you didn't explain your avatar.



[edit on 13-1-2009 by Boone 870]

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by RockHound757

 

Tell us Boone, why do you lurk daily on Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forums, but refuse to engage?

Well, dMole (I'm assuming), I feel it necessary to tiptoe while in unfriendly territory or risk having private information posted on the Internet for all to see. You've seen the "opposition" thread, can you blame me?

I'll address the rest of your post tomorrow.

"Tip-Toe"?

"Boonedoggled", your private information is already known by Pilots For 9/11 Truth. You registered there. You being signed on daily is known by every guest who lurks there.

You have no excuse to join the fur ball except you are afraid to engage. I dont blame you. you will be crushed in any debate. That is why everyone from Beachnut, 911Files, Reheat.. and so on.. refuse to sign up there for debate.