Official Story Shill Crushed By Truther/Researcher in Radio Debate!

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


Great post. As said before, it really is like watching a squad of circus clowns stumble out of a VW bug.

They are so exposed, all they can rely on is repetition and naive readers who aren't paying attention.

Originally posted by WetBlanky
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

Great post. As said before, it really is like watching a squad of circus clowns stumble out of a VW bug.

They are so exposed, all they can rely on is repetition and naive readers who aren't paying attention.

Without any evidence of a flyover, the squad of CIT clowns are still stumbling over their own theory. In desperation, "all they can rely on is repetition and naive readers who aren't paying attention." Fortunately, there are very few who fall for the CIT theory.

Originally posted by WetBlanky
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

Great post. As said before, it really is like watching a squad of circus clowns stumble out of a VW bug.

They are so exposed, all they can rely on is repetition and naive readers who aren't paying attention.

I guess that's why some people colloquially refer to CIT as "Circus In Town".

From Circus In Town's "Praise" page (...)

Source

As far as "helping" that looks like a job for super hero crime fighters "Pilots for no Plane at the pentagon" and "Circus In Town" aka CIT.

Source

Why would that be? Maybe because of harebrained statements such as this?

The most puzzling would be passengers in seats, and again this could be a lie, a mistake, or they actually went so far as to plant a section of seats with cadavers waiting to be blown up or engulfed in flames. Obviously they were bringing in large pieces of equipment and furniture, so a large crate with freshly unfrozen cadavers being wheeled into an unoccupied room could go undetected the day before 9/11.

-- Aldo Marquis

Source

So...in keeping with the circus theme: I think it's astonishing to see the mental gymnastics and conspiratorial acrobatics required to dive and dodge information showing CIT's claims to be frivolous and delusional. You will do anything but retract or recant. You just wouldn't able to handle it. Your world would crumble. So instead, you slowly self-destruct. Well, it's not my problem what you and P4T do to yourself. It is my problem, however, what and who you pretend to represent.

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by WetBlanky
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

Great post. As said before, it really is like watching a squad of circus clowns stumble out of a VW bug.

They are so exposed, all they can rely on is repetition and naive readers who aren't paying attention.

I guess that's why some people colloquially refer to CIT as "Circus In Town".

From Circus In Town's "Praise" page (...)

Source

As far as "helping" that looks like a job for super hero crime fighters "Pilots for no Plane at the pentagon" and "Circus In Town" aka CIT.

Source

Why would that be? Maybe because of harebrained statements such as this?

The most puzzling would be passengers in seats, and again this could be a lie, a mistake, or they actually went so far as to plant a section of seats with cadavers waiting to be blown up or engulfed in flames. Obviously they were bringing in large pieces of equipment and furniture, so a large crate with freshly unfrozen cadavers being wheeled into an unoccupied room could go undetected the day before 9/11.

-- Aldo Marquis

Source

So...in keeping with the circus theme: I think it's astonishing to see the mental gymnastics and conspiratorial acrobatics required to dive and dodge information showing CIT's claims to be frivolous and delusional. You will do anything but retract or recant. You just wouldn't able to handle it. Your world would crumble. So instead, you slowly self-destruct. Well, it's not my problem what you and P4T do to yourself. It is my problem, however, what and who you pretend to represent.

There was never found any passengers in seats.

Not surprising at all that the biting satire from the pen of A. Marquis
completely went over your head.

I doubt very much that your rather energetic but utterly foul attempt
to make ATS into a clone of the jref-snakepit-type of forum will ever
succeed.

But by all means keep trying, for hopefully the Admin. will get pretty
tired of your persistent nastiness and ban you before long, as i'm
sure they are quite aware what a sad boofhead you really are!

Originally posted by djeminy
There was never found any passengers in seats.

Oh? Perhaps you should take that up with Staff Sgt. Mark Williams:

When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him.

Source

....as well as Capt. Jim Ingledue of the Virginia Beach Fire Department:

I did see airplane seats and a corpse still strapped to one of the seats.

Source

But... I suppose you'll simply accuse them both of complicity in mass murder instead, instead of pursuing what CIT calls "independent corroboration". Where's that much-touted "independent corroboration" now?

Originally posted by djeminy
Not surprising at all that the biting satire from the pen of A. Marquis
completely went over your head.

Unless I'm two feet tall, not really.

Originally posted by djeminy
I doubt very much that your rather energetic but utterly foul attempt
to make ATS into a clone of the jref-snakepit-type of forum will ever
succeed.

But by all means keep trying, for hopefully the Admin. will get pretty
tired of your persistent nastiness and ban you before long, as i'm
sure they are quite aware what a sad boofhead you really are!

Of course you want to get rid of anybody who tells the truth to your face. You haven't really made much on topic comments either, I suspect you haven't studied the subject at all but for the occasional flirt with apocryphal, hoax promoting sites.

By the way, have you ever heard of AA 77 passenger Zoe Falkenberg, whose pajamas, barbie doll and severed foot were found inside the Pentagon rubble?

Have you no shame?

I give it about an hour before Aldo Marquis adjusts his "unfrozen cadavers" statement to include "unfrozen cadavers strapped in plane seats". It's a mad world. Yes, such comments deserve to be ridiculed. Anybody who dares claim this without a sliver of direct evidence will have to hire a plunge protection team because their credibility instantaneously plummets below the sanity line.

I see "ThePostExaminer" declares victory... that would be sort of laughable victory proclamation reminiscent of the "grandiose and grossly unrealistic propaganda broadcasts" by information minister Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf during the invasion of Iraq.

There are two domains of interpretation. They are (A) determining what a witness believed he or she saw and (B) determining how well this witness statement agrees with the official flight path, and whether it ought to be exact, and if not, if this "disproves the official story".

In domain (A), it's quite clear that Terry Morin is a SoC witness, which is why neither "WetBlanky" nor "ThePostExaminer" care to explain what will happen if, even in the most charitable scenario for CIT, when the plane flies "parallel to the edge of the FOB" AND "would have run into the Air Force Memorial", one draws a straight line from that point towards the Citgo.

In domain (B), TPE has been repeatedly reminded that his repeated assertions that any deviation in witness perception of the Official Flight Path (OFP) amounts to actual physical deviation of the Official Flight Path, are absolutely false.

Witnesses are not computers, as Craig Ranke said. Like the OFP, there can only be one NoC flight path, not multiple NoC flight paths, since any plane approaching the Pentagon on any path can't be in two places at the same time.

Therefore, TPE's position debunks his own NoC witnesses, since their flight path drawings are all mutually exclusive. Unless TPE elects to agree with Craig Ranke again, that "witnesses are not computers", in which case he has to concede that Terry Morin's flight path description does not have to match the OFP exactly, because Terry Morin is not a computer.

Ergo, Terry Morin's perceived flight path does not debunk the official story.

What's more, the margin of error is such that all witnesses are actually reporting the OFP, only due to the fact that "witnesses are not computers", as Craig Ranke claimed, their flight paths deviate both from the OFP and from each other. Sometimes wildly. I have repeatedly requested citations from the scientific literature expounding the "unparalleled accuracy" of witness testimony, whether or not "corroborated". The fact is, such literature does not exist, which is why my request is conspicuously ignored.

The reason we see a northerly bias in CIT's witness pool is because (A) all dissenters have been attacked, derided, insulted, defamed, claimed to be liars and complicit in mass murder (B) All CIT's flight path drawings are drawn by witnesses situated to the north of the Official Flight Path.

In other words, CIT's witness pool is a biased selection due to cherry picking, and the unreasonable expectations of witness flight path observation show a double standard with respect to their own NoC path. Unreasonable expectations of witness preciseness are an example of the Nirvana Fallacy. Lastly, witness confidence ('No frickin way / I'd bet my life on it') is no indication whatsoever of witness accuracy. Again, show me the scientific literature proving otherwise, against consensus, or kindly shut up.

From now on, if I receive the same ignorant spam again from either ThePostExaminer or WetBlanky, I will refer back to this post, until the issues raised are properly addressed.

Cheers.

Meanwhile, ThePostExaminer, will you walk through Warren Stutt's FDR decoder source code line-by-line with me or not? I'll open a thread for the purpose. Why are you ignoring my proposal?

Originally posted by djeminy

There was never found any passengers in seats.

Not surprising at all that the biting satire from the pen of A. Marquis
completely went over your head.

I doubt very much that your rather energetic but utterly foul attempt
to make ATS into a clone of the jref-snakepit-type of forum will ever
succeed.

But by all means keep trying, for hopefully the Admin. will get pretty
tired of your persistent nastiness and ban you before long, as i'm
sure they are quite aware what a sad boofhead you really are!

I am reminded of Baghdad Bob, the comical chief spokeman for Saddam, saying to the world's news camera "The Americnas are nowhere to be found! We have double dog killed them!" while an M1-A1 tank rumbles into the picture behind him.

Funny thing this Internet.and how things you say can come back to haunt you. That comment of Marquis' is without a doubt, one of the most obscene and obnoxious comments I have ever heard anyone make about anything anywhere. You can twist and spin and pretzel and convolute it all you want, but they are his words, spoken in truth, and show him without a doubt to be mentally ill.

reply to post by snowcrash911


An outstanding synopsis snowcrasher911!

I'm really and truly getting sick and tired of CIT idiots polluting the 'net with the bankrupt and long debunked garbage, so here's what I'm going to do... If they continue to post in this thread I'm not going to argue details at all... I'm simply going to list and prove the lies and deception of these obvious "con artists". It all available and then they can deal with the consequence of it all consolidated into a wall of text with photo/video/audio proof...

Go find another hobby this one is a FAILURE

ETA: READ THIS CAREFULLY CIT. I will also post the same article at 911 myths...

reply to post by Reheat

It is obviously more complicated than your simple mind can pretend not to comprehend. No one here who has been discussing this accepts Morin's OBSERVED flight path. You have simply been extremely dishonest by putting words and thoughts into our mouths. In other words you have LIED again and again. You have to do that in order to continue your FRAUD.

Seriously?

Morin didn't describe that path? In detail?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And now you're denying what has been written in the last 10 pages of this very thread?

Written in that link in your sig?

For the purposes of this paper I had to assume the aircraft flew a northerly flight path. This does not correlate to witness Terry Morin’s testimony as he indicated the flight path was parallel to the roofline of the Navy Annex

Reheat

Run it by me again Reheat. How is that description of a North of Columbia Pike flightpath "not" a "northerly flight path"??

Yes, Terry Morin describes a flight path parallel to the Navy Annex, south of Citgo.

Morin's stated position of the aircraft as it passed over his position *DID NOT* change significantly from his initial statements to the FBI and the so called "interview" by CIT. Therefore my *debunk* of the nonsense is valid for both.

Snowcrash

Proudbird even claimed that this flightpath was "aerodynamically possible" but in the same breath would have to disregard Stutt's "extra seconds".

Alfie claims that it was closer to Columbia Pike (disregarding altogether what Morin actually described).

You all have one choice. Either the aircraft flew the directional damage path/FDR heading or the entire OCT falls on its backside. Including Stutt's unverified "extra seconds". No "slightly north/Columbia Pike/parallel to the Annex" smoke and mirrors jive.

Morin disproves the OCT path no matter how much # you guys throw around this thread.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


That's one.

This is a very easy one as it is easily to analyze the FRAUDULENT DECEPTION that CIT practices to perpetuate their delusional claptrap...



This pretends to be showing the C-130 with the Pentagon in the background in order to deceive the viewer into believing that the witnesses saw the C-130 come in from the NW as the Arlington Cemetery people said. It purports to show the 84th RADES Radar analysis wrong. It was posted on the Loose Change Web Site by A. Marquis.

What's wrong with it? It is from *two different viewing angles. We can determine that by the FACT that the smoke column from the crash was *never* to the North of the impact point. The winds were from the N-NW and blew the smoke column to the South.

Also notice the angle of the two fuel tanks in the foreground is at a different angle between the large photo and the inset.

THIS WAS OBVIOUSLY DONE TO DECEIVE.

Some search for the truth, huh?

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

Yes, Terry Morin describes a flight path parallel to the Navy Annex, south of Citgo.

Morin's stated position of the aircraft as it passed over his position *DID NOT* change significantly from his initial statements to the FBI and the so called "interview" by CIT. Therefore my *debunk* of the nonsense is valid for both.

Snowcrash

I only recognize the top sentence, where I say: "Yes, Terry Morin describes a flight path parallel to the Navy Annex, south of Citgo.". The rest is a quote from Reheat, not from me. Why do you lie like it's second nature?

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Proudbird even claimed that this flightpath was "aerodynamically possible" but in the same breath would have to disregard Stutt's "extra seconds".

Why are you ignoring my request regarding Warren Stutt's source code?

I will keep asking this until you respond.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
You all have one choice. Either the aircraft flew the directional damage path/FDR heading or the entire OCT falls on its backside. Including Stutt's unverified "extra seconds". No "slightly north/Columbia Pike/parallel to the Annex" smoke and mirrors jive.

This is repetitive SPAM, because these arguments have already been addressed.

Address the arguments in the link. Each time you SPAM, I will respond with it.

Originally posted by Reheat
[Some search for the truth, huh?

Indeed, mind you, there is an excellent debunk of CIT's fake C-130 flight path on JREF using the same photo analysis methods.

In domain (A), it's quite clear that Terry Morin is a SoC witness, which is why neither "WetBlanky" nor "ThePostExaminer" care to explain what will happen if, even in the most charitable scenario for CIT, when the plane flies "parallel to the edge of the FOB" AND "would have run into the Air Force Memorial", one draws a straight line from that point towards the Citgo. In domain (B), TPE has been repeatedly reminded that his repeated assertions that any deviation in witness perception of the Official Flight Path (OFP) amounts to actual physical deviation of the Official Flight Path, are absolutely false.

Snowcrash, I'm just getting warmed up. Why would I go to another thread to discuss Stutt's "data" when you're here denying a very important section of this data, namely the "bank data".

You're contradicting yourself throughout this thread regarding Morin.

One minute, Morin, according to you and most other GLs here (Reheat *wave*) was describing a "parallel to the NavyAnnex roofline/North of Columbia Pike" flightpath. The next you're squealing "Nirvana fallacy" after I painstakingly reinforced what path he was actually describing using Morin's own testimony. HIS words.

One minute you claim that a North of Columbia Pike path can pass "south of Citgo", but when I post Stutt's "bank data", void of the necessary left bank to line up with the directional damage, you're here ranting about what? That Morin didn't actually see the plane over his head, between the fence that runs between Columbia Pike and the Annex. heading towards the US Airforce Memorial site, over the edge of the roof of the Annex, no frickin way over south of Columbia Pike? That his view was somehow skewed and that he was completely wrong on all counts?

That more credence should be given to what he could physically see when the aircraft went below his line of sight?



...than when the aircraft was flying "50ft" above the Annex in full view? Really?

Slap my wrists somebody!

I know witnesses aren't computers but they're not complete morons either Snowcrash.

I'm moving on now to who actually corroborates the flightpath he described.

I've wasted enough time on you and your friends' contradictory statements.

Every time I read your posts, this song keeps popping into my head Snowcrash.



Settle petal.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


That's two.

Here's what I said in a thorough debunk of CIT's delusional NOC theory..

Issues such as roll rates, roll authority, G available, and G limits are not addressed (except in a note at the end). The numbers in the chart are raw numbers based upon a required turn radius to make the turns and then examples at various speeds. Again, the positions are dictated by the witness’s testimony. Once the positions are plotted a turn radius required to make the turns can be easily calculated. The airspeeds are speeds that cover the range of all reasonable speeds possible by any aircraft described by any witness. The witnesses stated that the aircraft was traveling “very fast”, but that has been distorted by CIT, who now advocate a slower speed in order to make the theory fit. As noted in the charts the speed makes very little difference in the aircraft’s ability to make the turns.

Here's what CIT says I said throughout the text blocks of this image. They say I said the FLIGHT PATHS WERE REASONABLE. Obviously, they are not reasonable, they are very stupid, but that's their claim. I addressed only every reasonable airspeed possible... That is no mistake, they misquoted intentionally to deceive.




Some search for the truth, huh?

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

Morin disproves the OCT path no matter how much # you guys throw around this thread.

How could he possibly do that? Morin said he had eyes on "the actual airframe" as it proceded down the hill toward the Pentagon. He had continuous sight of the airframe until it began to descent behind some trees until all he wcould see was the stabilizer:

As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. I believe I saw the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor turn in that direction. The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon.

If the aircraft flew "north of the service station" or flew "over the Annex" how could Morin have kept sight of "the actual airframe" until impact?

Can't wait till you can explain yourselves in a court of law! Oh wait...you already did.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


That's three, but since it was a video I'll give you time to think about it and confer with your buddies in the CIT cullt tree fort... Keep on going and when we're finished her I'll consolidate them and start a new thread...

It's raining today, so I can stay here all day and post examples of your lies and deception. It's entirely up to you...

Find a new hobby, this one is a FAILURE.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

In domain (A), it's quite clear that Terry Morin is a SoC witness, which is why neither "WetBlanky" nor "ThePostExaminer" care to explain what will happen if, even in the most charitable scenario for CIT, when the plane flies "parallel to the edge of the FOB" AND "would have run into the Air Force Memorial", one draws a straight line from that point towards the Citgo. In domain (B), TPE has been repeatedly reminded that his repeated assertions that any deviation in witness perception of the Official Flight Path (OFP) amounts to actual physical deviation of the Official Flight Path, are absolutely false.

Snowcrash, I'm just getting warmed up. Why would I go to another thread to discuss Stutt's "data" when you're here denying a very important section of this data, namely the "bank data".

You're contradicting yourself throughout this thread regarding Morin.

One minute, Morin, according to you and most other GLs here (Reheat *wave*) was describing a "parallel to the NavyAnnex roofline/North of Columbia Pike" flightpath. The next you're squealing "Nirvana fallacy" after I painstakingly reinforced what path he was actually describing using Morin's own testimony. HIS words.

One minute you claim that a North of Columbia Pike path can pass "south of Citgo", but when I post Stutt's "bank data", void of the necessary left bank to line up with the directional damage, you're here ranting about what? That Morin didn't actually see the plane over his head, between the fence that runs between Columbia Pike and the Annex. heading towards the US Airforce Memorial site, over the edge of the roof of the Annex, no frickin way over south of Columbia Pike? That his view was somehow skewed and that he was completely wrong on all counts?

That more credence should be given to what he could physically see when the aircraft went below his line of sight?

Nirvana fallacy. These issues have already been adequately addressed in this post. You are posting SPAM. Please address ALL the arguments in that post, not just the ones you feel comfortable selecting.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
I know witnesses aren't computers but they're not complete morons either Snowcrash.

False dilemma fallacy.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
I'm moving on now to who actually corroborates the flightpath he described.

I've wasted enough time on you and your friends' contradictory statements.

Why are you ignoring my request regarding Warren Stutt's source code?

I will keep asking this until you respond.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Every time I read your posts, this song keeps popping into my head Snowcrash.

Settle petal.

And each time I read yours, I think of this episode:

Well, on the other hand, I could accept TPE's weak excuse of being too "busy" to get into Warren Stutt's source code for now, because everybody knows TPE's simply trying to weasel out from under the terror of being exposed as the complete nitwit on IT he really is.

Don't make anymore comments on Warren Stutt's FDR decoder, TPE, unless you're prepared to open that thread and go toe to toe on the code, line by line.