CIT's own logical fallacy in their fly-over thesis.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Aldo, you have got me completely confused now about which loading dock you are placing Roosevelt Roberts at. Surely it is the one overlooking the south parking lot as I indicated ?

I have seen references to him being at the east end of that loading dock, but if you are now saying he was on the east face of the Pentagon how could he see lane 1 of the south parking lot ?

There is another dock that offers a view of south parking as well. One where one can "look out and look off".

As for his lane 1 reference, he is probably referring to another lane. He certainly isn't referring to the lane 1 you are suggesting or he wouldn't have said the following:

Craig: Right, but from what direction did it seem like it came from?

Roosevelt: It seemed like. . . that it came from, um. . . it- hold on a second.

*06:25

Roosevelt: It seemed like it came from, um. . . southwest-lookin- the same way it came in, or appeared that it came in, it seemed like it was southwe- (indistinguishable) came in. . . uh. . . almost like where that ne- that first plane had, um. . . flew into the, um, Pentagon right there. It- it- di- it looked like it came from that direction.

Craig: So from the same direction as- as- as the f-

Aldo: -From the impact side, basically, from that direction.

Roosevelt: Everything- right.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Aldo_Marquis_CIT

 

14+ heavily corroborated eyewitnesses do.

Again, what makes them dubious? You are trying to dodge the obvious here, the workers testimony destroys your little theory so your only choice is to cast unsubstantiated accusations about the veracity of their witness.

That carries no weight, sorry. Please tell me how you know they are not telling the truth and all of your alleged 14+ witnesses are all honest, correct and unerring.

They don't destroy anything.

1. Don Mason has never been asked about what he saw exactly.
2. They are only 2 people.

Did you speak with them?

Let me ask you something.

Do you think that this man:



...really was able to dive out of the way of a jet that allegedly had it's engine move past his head and moved from where he was at on the sidewalk to the Pentagon wall in a second or less and AT THE SAME TIME be able to turn and look at see the details of the right wing/engine going through a fence and a generator trailer?

Do you think this is likely or less likely?

Clearly with the NoC/flyover evidence this mean that people are lying right? Well who do you think is lying?

reply to post by weedwhacker



It's always easier when you try and cast doubt on a witness anonymously from behind your computer screen using technical jargon.

I suggest everyone review the work and calculations here:

z3.invisionfree.com...

I love how you use details from a man who saw a low flying aircraft to prove that man didn't see a low flying aircraft. Priceless.

Originally posted by LaBTop

Pentagon witness Dewitt Roseborough misinterpreted by CIT as a fly-over witness :

No, he is not misinterpreted. He had ample opportunity to tell he did not see a flyover and he refused to. His account is clear enough that he is a flyover witness and his behavior dictates this.

(LT : Since he did not explain which parking lot; there is also a northern one, we do not know for sure what parking he meant. From both parkings he could have observed the NoC plane, and lost sight of it when the corner of the building blocked further view.
South parking however seems to be the one with 2 walkways where he could have ducked under for cover from floating and flying debris. South parking also laid in the right wind direction that day)

Wrong. You can't see the NoC plane from north parking. Again, showing how it is irresponsible for you to be posting your "opinions" as they only serve to confuse people. I also told him he was in south parking and he did not correct me.

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by Aldo_Marquis_CIT

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Aldo_Marquis_CIT

 

dubious PenRen workers

What gives you the right to declare someone as "dubious"?

14+ heavily corroborated eyewitnesses do.

You mean witnesses like Ed Paik, which you guys have been busted for trying to pull a fast one? He wasn't even outside, we know this now.

I think that alone gives anyone the right to declare the CIT and anything they present as "dubious".

We didn't pull a fast one. Stop letting your anger speak for you.

His brother said he was outside. We interviewed him outside. There was a language barrier. He still indicated the plane was in the same spot., over his shop, on the north side of Columbia Pike, headed over the Navy Annex effectively heading right for the north side of the Citgo.

I can tell you're desperate.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Aldo_Marquis_CIT

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
So, Aldo, they faked the light pole path, the generator trailer/fence, and the surveillance video so they could fly the plane over the building at a different angle?

Yes that's right.

So it's a perfectly acceptable scenario for YOUR delusion, but NOT for labtop's?

Ok dude, whatever floats your boat.

Just pointing out the lunacy of that particular line of reasoning.

The lunacy lies in the fact that this was their decision or mistake and we found it out.

Joey, I am telling you this in all honesty. This would be so much easier if you let go of your anger and pride and just admit you've been wrong this whole time about the Pentagon attack.

reply to post by LaBTop


I really don't have much time to dedicate to this nonsense, Lab.

You can just say the opposite of me but it does not change that he heard a roar above him and "looked up" to see a plane while he was walking away from the building in south parking.

I spoke with him, did you? Did you? Did you ask him about the flyover? I did. Did he refuse to answer any questions about it to you? Well he did with me as he dd with Craig and I was even more specific.

If he heard and saw a plane above him why would he need to "turn around" to take photos of when the plane hit. Why if he saw the plane hit would he need to take time to figure out what had happened? Why would he be so confused?

Aldo, I see you and Craig in both your CIT threads I linked to in this thread, repeatedly tripwire yourself over your own NoC discovery.There are few Official Theory arguments and evidence left over after acceptance of a NoC flight path and its logical consequences.

I can't help that you want to add your 2 cents. You clearly want to feel you made your own discovery. You are the only one tripping on anything.

It is a logical fallacy to go against your own belief in a NoC flight path when arguing for a Fly-Over plane seen by Dewitt Roseborough, when supposing the plane he saw flew over Route 395 (South of Pentagon) or even Route 110 (East of Pentagon), when YOU BOTH, and we all too, who believe in your discovery of those NoC witnesses, know by heart now that the only plane in that time frame near the Pentagon was the NoC incoming from the West, plane.

Am I right or not? What do you think now that you saw my argumentation?
Btw, I think that I am right as a rock on this subject.

You are wrong. 395 is also SE of the Pentagon the plane was banking that direction. 110 is E of the Pentagon.

Because it is also the same logical fallacy when you both and more of your forum-groupies base your Fly-Over theory on some quasi-evidence, handed over by our adversary, the US government and all of its branches. You base it, in writing, on a fake "Exit" hole.
Sorry for the groupies remark, not meant as an insult, but sadly enough, your forum starts to have an inclination on me, like that forum you and I so despise over the years, because of that same non-critical, group behavior. Like lemmings, following their few, chosen leader(s). JREF.
See the link in my first post about the "new" theory at your forum.

If the ASCE is in on it so be it. But their report conflicts with where the witnesses saw the plane. The damage is documented by them and was perhaps designed a certain way to lead them down a certain path. This included the light poles. I am sorry, but just because you are suspicious of the ASCE isn't supporting evidence to suggest the plane flew NoC and impacted.

Please change your fundamentalist attitude towards new and old investigative members, or you will loose your reader-base.

I am not concerned with losing readers because no one is going to leave because we have evidence and logic on our side and you don't. I am not concerned in the least. I am here to set you straight, not babysit or hold people's hands.

For the wrong reasons, because solely your NoC investigation is of immense historical value.

So why would we lose readers?

Please do not further the path of "know it all, done it all".
And especially do not insult good willing new members, because you feel you have some online power. Your name calling in that thread was not asked for. And frankly, I do not understand why you lower yourself for a global audience to use such words against a civil debating person.
There will be knocking many new members on your forum doors, who will ask "stupid" questions, repeatedly. You must keep it civil, and keep teaching them in a civil manner, whatever boring it can be.

LabTop, I was courteous yet firm with you. If your feelings were hurt then I apologize. But I stand by what said.

Trust me, if you put your name and life on the line and brought back significant evidence proving what happened.

I am the only one who spoke with Roosevelt in context of seeing the flyover. I know what he saw. I don't need your thread countering this FACT with your opinions because you want to stare at pictures and declare us wrong. and feel like YOU are the one who figured out what really happened.

I don't want to be known for this. I wish I never learned it or figured it out, but I have a responsibility to see it thru and keep the pool clean and this is dirtying it.



[edit on 24-4-2010 by Aldo


[edit on 24-4-2010 by Aldo_Marquis_CIT]

reply to post by Aldo_Marquis_CIT

Well who do you think is lying?

Well, you claim to have "interviewed" all these witnesses, so just to eliminate you from the line up of potential liars why don't you post the complete, unabridged, and unedited versions of your interviews. That is the only way we can know for sure.

Originally posted by Aldo_Marquis_CIT

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Aldo_Marquis_CIT

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
So, Aldo, they faked the light pole path, the generator trailer/fence, and the surveillance video so they could fly the plane over the building at a different angle?

Yes that's right.

So it's a perfectly acceptable scenario for YOUR delusion, but NOT for labtop's?

Ok dude, whatever floats your boat.

Just pointing out the lunacy of that particular line of reasoning.

The lunacy lies in the fact that this was their decision or mistake and we found it out.

NO, the lunacy lies in the fact that he appears to agree with nearly everything you dolts have put out.

NoC - true
Flag poles - faked
Generator trailer damage - faked
etc.

You diverge only at the end game - namely, what happened to the plane.

But it's dumb that HE uses it, but fine for you......

reply to post by Aldo_Marquis_CIT


Aldo, as a Pentagon police officer I would think Roosevelt Roberts would not have any doubt about where lane 1 of the south parking lot is.

Do you have any information showing it is not the first lane nearest the cloverleaf ?

reply to post by Aldo_Marquis_CIT


Oh, my....this has to be the funniest line, lately:

It's always easier when you try and cast doubt on a witness anonymously from behind your computer screen using technical jargon.

"technical jargon"??

Oh, dear. Attempting to be as precise as possible is the exact opposite of what "CIT" has been doing ( and their lapdog, that 'other guy' ...)

I was showing how, using logic, physics, and common sense, the "eyewitness" account of the "u-turn" and "missing the landing zone" (*) was worthless, since it came from a non-pilot (layperson) who spoke in terms that made sense to him, perhaps, but seem to be woefully misinterpreted (by "CIT") for the express purpose of promoting this nonsense 'theory'. Because, it IS nonsense, when confronted with the overwhelming evidence to contrary.

(*)-(that one still puzzles me...just exactly WHERE is a "commercial jet liner" -- your words-- expecting to land, at the Pentagon? Can anyone point out the 'runway' there?)

NOBODY SAW A 'fly-over". There would have been hundreds of reports from people all around the area, in Rosslyn, Key Bridge, Georgetown, the Mall, etc.

This event didn't happen at night, nor in the fog. A clear, bright early Fall morning. I know, because I was there, in Arlington. Less than one mile from Ft. Myer.

Watched news almost constantly, for days afterwards. Both Local, and National feeds. Read the papers. It was foremost on everyone's minds.

NO ONE ever came forward to say they saw an airplane flying away from the Pentagon, at that low of altitude (~100 feet). It would have been IMPOSSIBLE to "hide" a "commercial jet liner" from view, at that altitude, on that morning, in that heavily populated area. AND, to "hide" the same airplane from the EYES of the air traffic controllers in the DCA Tower cab, and to "hide" the airplane from the Potomac TRACON radars!

The 'primary target' had been acquired, when some point west of the region, and assigned the moniker "LOOK", to identify it on the radar screens. It was tracked, by the radar, for several minutes, and it was pointed out to the Air National Guard C-130 nearby, who confirmed seeing the Boeing 757 approach, and then impact, the Pentagon.

This is a pathetic attempt, by "CIT", (and others) to save face, it would seem. (Save face, or wipe egg off, not sure which...)

'They" have been caught many times repeating very bad information, and promoting silly 'videos' that also repeat that same bad information.

ALL of that seems to have a certain sort of profit motive behind it.

Oh, and I also happen to get regular e-mails from that "other guy" I mentioned above.

STILL trying to sell this junk --- anyone seen the latest sales pitch? "Give Mom the 'Truth' for Mother's Day"

All for a price, of course.

I am disgusted.





[edit on 25 April 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
There is no way to corroborate this belief.

You have what they've released, nothing more.

IIRC, CIT promised to release the raw interviews for the people that they have submitted as NoC witnesses, but haven't.

With a track record like that, how do you KNOW that there aren't interviews that they haven't released AT ALL?

How does "Joey Canoli" KNOW that there ARE interviews that they haven't released AT ALL?

Do we have any way to corroborate "Joey Canoli's" belief that "...CIT promised to release the raw interviews..."

Where was this promise made? I've seen this claimed about Craig several times before, but the source linky is where again?

Or do we just have the internet "say so" of someone called "Joey Canoli" on the interwebs?

kthxbye (as one used to say on the Illusionist forum)

Originally posted by LaBTop

Read all the 5 pages of this thread on the CIT site's own forum, named :

Finally Another Theory!!! (For the Truthers side), Research may have really paid off!
z3.invisionfree.com...

So where (and what) is that logical fallacy then, LaB? Or do we need to sift through 5 long-winded pages of posts talking about "fallacies" that link to 5 more pages of long winded pages of posts of...

It reminds me of grade school when kids would repeatedly write "turn to page___" in the dictionaries (and they usually ended up pointing to a crudely drawn penis added to some picture or other). Is there a "payoff" here somewhere that I missed?

If we are at this forum talking about a "logical fallacy," can't you just point out what and where the logical fallacy is located here, rather than linking to 2 other threads and other forums that the busy reader must sift through?

Also, a couple the posters that you say "convinced" you about Roberts' account had already earned their circular, repetitive way onto my ignore list long ago, so those linked threads above weren't all that informative or convincing for me (I probably didn't/don't see the posts you referenced at all).

[edit on 30-4-2010 by rhunter]

Originally posted by rhunter

How does "Joey Canoli" KNOW that there ARE interviews that they haven't released AT ALL?

One thing's for certain.

They haven't released the raw interview tapes.

That is undeniable by any rational person.

Joey,

We never promised any such thing and we don't have to. The interviews are edited for conciseness. If you doubt us, get down to Arlington and interview the witnesses yourself. Show them the video we recorded and ask if we misrepresented them or left anything out.

Or is your plan to use innuendo and false accusations to make it look like we are hiding something?

Originally posted by Aldo_Marquis_CIT

We never promised any such thing

So then I'm asking you now. Will you?

and we don't have to.

Agreed. But you must know that CIT and the flyover garbage is pretty disregarded by most CT websites, right? That's cuz no one, not even CTerz, give your beliefs much credibility.

Or is your plan to use innuendo and false accusations to make it look like we are hiding something?

Innuendo seems to be enough, given the fact that no one gives your flyover beliefs much credence.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Aldo_Marquis_CIT

We never promised any such thing

So then I'm asking you now. Will you?

Why should we have to? We already told you how and why we edited the interviews. You've already had your answer and it begins and ends with two letters.

and we don't have to.

Agreed. But you must know that CIT and the flyover garbage is pretty disregarded by most CT websites, right? That's cuz no one, not even CTerz, give your beliefs much credibility.

I don't even know who you are referring to. We get e-mails all the time praising us and our efforts. Any truther's or website's disdain for us has no bearing on the evidence we've provided. We've got a ton of views on our videos and it is 5 starred on youtube, so I am not really sure who or what you are referring to nor do I care. We are still right and the witnesses speak for themselves. If it is garbage and disregarded why you are so concerned with convincing yourself and others that it is such? Why do you even spend time on it. You know why.

Or is your plan to use innuendo and false accusations to make it look like we are hiding something?

Innuendo seems to be enough, given the fact that no one gives your flyover beliefs much credence.

Ah so you admit you are using innuendo to cast doubt on something you consider to be garbage out the gate. So you are dishonest and you waste your time on garbage "nobody" believes. Gotcha. Makes sense.

[edit on 30-4-2010 by Aldo_Marquis_CIT]

Seriously what do you expect to find or for us to be hiding? Do you expect there to missing footage of us twisting Lagasse and Brooks arm to tell us the north side?

Just contact them. You will get the same results we did.

The plane approached on the north side of the gas station and flew over the Pentagon. I am sorry you have such a problem believing that.

Have a nice day.

[edit on 30-4-2010 by Aldo_Marquis_CIT]

Originally posted by Aldo_Marquis_CIT

I don't even know who you are referring to.

IIRC, the Alex Jones site mods told you guys to take a hike, and labelled you disinfo.

Is that correct or not.