CIT's (latest) Theory Pulverized

So from what I gather, some of the CIT's NoC witnesses also saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

Some of then didn't?

So for the ones that didn't, were they even in a position that they could in fact see it?

Cuz if they weren't, how does it strengthen their case?

SB,
Both Aldo and Craig have claimed that those witnesses that specifically mentioned the plane hitting the pentagon were fooled by a slight of hand illusion.
This is well documented by the CIT.
BUT on the one hand those witnesses were easily fooled but not the CIT witnesses
s1.zetaboards.com...

We now have 12 witnesses they will need to confront.
They did not all simultaneously hallucinate the exact same opposite of reality.

So any witness that contradicts CIT was fooled by the illusion BUT the witnesses the CIT has cherry picked and twiested somehow they are above being fooled.

Aldo claims that their evidence has been "scientifically corroborated"
s1.zetaboards.com...

Well it has been SCIENTIFICALLY corroborated. So it is an unassailable fact. Especially considering you and your cohorts have not effectively assailed it

I would like the CIT to provide the names of the qualified individuals who did this because I am calling total BS on this by Aldo.
Aldo says this of Levi who is the CIT witness who recently told the CIT to take down his image and voice from their movie/website.
Please someone translate what Aldo means because my brain hurts reading this

He knows what we believe and he outwardly believes the plane hit the building. We're ok with that. What he believes and what he saw are two completely different things.

s1.zetaboards.com...
WOW Aldo has no shame he just about admits to cherry picking, quote mining, leading and twisting his own witness.
WOW JUST WOW!

[edit on 14-6-2008 by TheBobert]

[edit on 14-6-2008 by TheBobert]

BTW Craig no one cares how you and I know each other.
I only addressed the matter because that person thought I was part of CIT.
Your response just shows what little character you have with all of the lies you posted.

reply to post by TheBobert


TBH, I'm not really too interested in what the CIT have to say about the witness statements.

I should have made my question more clear.

The guys that SAW it hit, were obviously in a position to see it hit.

So were the witnesses that DIDN'T see it hit NOT in a place to see it hit? Or in other words, was their view blocked?

Oops sorry.
I am sure Craig can field that one for you.

Why do half of "The Bobert's" posts look like this?

What do you mean by that?
Cant you read those huge letters that explain why?
You may want to take it up with a mod if you cant read those.
BTW it is nowhere near "half my posts" where those appear.
Are you ok?
Please try and stay on topic and not derail this thread.


[edit on 14-6-2008 by TheBobert]

[edit on 14-6-2008 by TheBobert]

Here is a list of what could have gone wrong that day based on what Criag and the CIT say (please add anything I may have missed)
1) The cabbie could have backed out .
2) The Cabbie could have not prerformed his job correctly
3) The planted DNA may have looked suspiciousl
3a) The DNA planters may have had a sudden pain of guilt and backed out
4) The planted plane debris may have not been planted correclty
4a) The planted plane debris crew may have decided that this wasnt such a hot idea
5) The explosives planted at the pentagon may have not gone off
6) The explosives at the Pentagon may have been discovered.
7) the explosive planting team may have been discovered/backed out
8) The light pole removal may have been discovered
9) The light pole "planting" may have been discovered
10) The amount of individuals needed for 8 and 9 may have wondered what was going on and blown the whistle.

Ok my brain hurts already and there is probably another 20 things I could list.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
That is the only thing that TheBobert could possibly be referring to and how he could libelously translate that to us "manipulating evidence" I do not know.

I don't know why it's allowed on here. As I've called for once, and I'll call for again:

Can we have a 9/11 forum where if you post, you have to back it up? I mean, for a forum that is suppossedly the most watched forum, there sure is a lot of vitriol let go IMO.

Edit: Im not saying I'm innocent in the vitriol myself.

[edit on 6/14/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
So from what I gather, some of the CIT's NoC witnesses also saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

Some of then didn't?

So for the ones that didn't, were they even in a position that they could in fact see it?

Cuz if they weren't, how does it strengthen their case?

A question Seymour:

What do think of the C-130 that was trailing Flight 77? Do you think this may be the cause of some confusion?

It might be best if you addressed that with a mod via PM.
Please check the post of the nearest mod and click on "send U2U" and that will allow you to PM a mod.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
The guys that SAW it hit, were obviously in a position to see it hit.

I have spoken to people who saw Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. There is no doubt in my mind on this issue.

Do you feel that there is something that occured at the Pentagon that leads you to believe that the US government had some involvement?

Originally posted by TheBobert
Do you feel that there is something that occured at the Pentagon that leads you to believe that the US government had some involvement?

That's kind of a leading question. But, I'll answer as best I can. I dont know.

It's not because I don't want to know, but the basic principle that I don't have a chance to know makes me suspicious. Sorry to say, but yeah, the whole thing makes me suspicious. When evidence is hiden from me, I have to question why. Sorry that makes you uncomfortable. I have that right.

What evidence do you feel was hidden?

Originally posted by TheBobert
What evidence do you feel was hidden?

I know this off topic but: THE STRUCTURAL DOCUMENTATION OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER!!!!!!!

Got it now?

8) The light pole removal may have been discovered
9) The light pole "planting" may have been discovered
10) The amount of individuals needed for 8 and 9 may have wondered what was going on and blown the whistle.

Tell me: if the jet had hit the lightpoles at approximately 350 kts (as per the FDR and official story) just how the hell do you suppose the thing remained perfectly intact all the way to the Pentagon??

Answer: it couldn't have.

So that means the official story has to be BS, and some other explanation is required.

[edit on 15-6-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit


Tell me: if the jet had hit the lightpoles at approximately 350 kts (as per the FDR and official story) just how the hell do you suppose the thing remained perfectly intact all the way to the Pentagon??

Real answer:

While the wing's skin is thin and woud have been damaged, The wing spars are immensely strong and the wing would have stayed on.

350 kts is about 200 yds/second. The light poles were what, half that distance? Not enough time to impact the flight characteristics.

The light poles have breakaway posts also to help lessen injuries in traffic accidents.

Originally posted by TheBobert
Oops sorry.
I am sure Craig can field that one for you.

Surely you don't believe that one for a second.

He will tap dance around and obfuscate to no end in order to avoid admitting that some of his NoC wirnesses weren't in a position to see the hit. Which of course means that their witness statements that they didn't see it means absolutely nothing.

I want to avoid that dance, thank you very much. Hence my statement that I really don't care what they have to say.

Originally posted by Griff

A question Seymour:

What do think of the C-130 that was trailing Flight 77? Do you think this may be the cause of some confusion?

Hardly, the C-130 never came down to low altitude.

So to think that it was confused with the 757 doesn't pass the smell test.