Originally posted by almighty bobEmotive rhetoric.

hmmm, I kind of echo his sentiments though. I mean, come on. I'll just say it. Craig is full of BULL *snip* and his agenda (although I still can't tell if it is for fame or $$, but it is one of the two) shines through brilliantly. There are ppl that died that day and for anyone to have to sit here and point out his OBVIOUS flaws and have it blatantly side stepped is ridiculous.

I imagine that those who have been going round and round on this issue with him, know as much as I do how pointless it really it is. But there is this tiny little voice in the back of my head that says "surely this guy will come clean since his theory is breaking down around his overly inflated little brain because it is the right thing to do.."

Not really holding my breath here. And am sure this post will *poof* disappear. Just saying, it is obvious who on these threads really care and who doesn't. (and I am not speaking of you almighty bob... just to clear that up. I have seen little of your posts, personally).



[edit on 29-9-2008 by justamomma]

Alright, I've been looking at the video-disproves RADES thread, and specifically, your image on page 5 of it, nice spot on the twin-smoke stack structures there.

Most likely due to my poor monitor, I am unable to actually see the C130 until 1:55 in the video. From the initial framegrab in your post there, I assume that the main image of placement is from 1:39?

Although the path shown there does not fit in with the 'conspiracy' path exactly, it seems it is still far closer to that than the official RADES path.

Also, at 1:55 (the main problem here is the placement of the actual car. I had it fairly well placed until the passing truck made me lose count of the powerpoles), the video seemed to be taken past where the dual carriageway splits, closer to the center of the cloverleaf. This would be quite an acute angle, but using the smokestacks for sighting, would still give a decent matchup to the green line indicated in your post. And this still would not match up to the RADES data.

It is all relative though to the actual position of the POV of the video, and the placement on the map of their vehical, and I am not entirely convinced of the placement beyond a respectable error margin, either yours nor mine.

But ulitmately, and looking at the photo's too, and reading through the thread, I cannot find enough information to how they either validate or invalidate the eyewitnesses, but can see an indication of how it contradicts the RADES data. Again, this would depend on the position of the photographers car.

Originally posted by almighty bob
As I stated in another post, when it comes to science, science being corroborated theory, observation trumps theory, so when multiple observations seem to contradict the science you have to at least consider that either the science is wrong or that the application of science is wrong.

Wait now, you're saying :

observation trumps theory

Let's see here...

Of all the people in position to see the impact, how many saw the plane hit the building?

All of them?

observation trumps theory

Yes, indeed.

But wait, what about this notion of a "flyover" theory that none of said witnesses observed?

observation trumps theory

Yep, I agree.

Originally posted by justamomma

Originally posted by almighty bobEmotive rhetoric.

hmmm, I kind of echo his sentiments though. I mean, come on. I'll just say it. Craig is full of BULL *snip* and his agenda (although I still can't tell if it is for fame or $$, but it is one of the two) shines through brilliantly. There are ppl that died that day and for anyone to have to sit here and point out his OBVIOUS flaws and have it blatantly side stepped is ridiculous.

I imagine that those who have been going round and round on this issue with him, know as much as I do how pointless it really it is. But there is this tiny little voice in the back of my head that says "surely this guy will come clean since his theory is breaking down around his overly inflated little brain because it is the right thing to do.."

Not really holding my breath here. And am sure this post will *poof* disappear. Just saying, it is obvious who on these threads really care and who doesn't. (and I am not speaking of you almighty bob... just to clear that up. I have seen little of your posts, personally).



[edit on 29-9-2008 by justamomma]

Well, if you really want to disprove CIT, emotive rhetoric is not the way. I don't see the theory breaking down, but I see more and more attacks on CIT than on the evidence. I have no bias or vested interest either way, this is just how I see it. In fairness, CIT posters have also been belittling in some responses too. Not a valid stance from either side. Not scientific.

But from my viewpoint, the witnesses still stand as valid and credible evidence to a conspiracy, in which case you are doing the people who died a greater disservice by attacking any investigation with anything but valid and credible evidence. Not with emotive rhetoric or cheap insults.

Originally posted by Reheat
Theory my arse! Since when is valid physics a theory?

Always, otherwise physicists would be out of a job. You cannot use dogma to adhere to a principle when observation shows otherwise. You must either show the observations to be erroneous, despite your claims I have not seen this done in a valid manner, or you must reconsider the principle.


[edit on 30-9-2008 by almighty bob]

Originally posted by justamomma
We DO see debris from the plane.

Isn't it amazing what some people 'see'?

I see unidentifed pieces of scrap wreckage in a handful of pictures. They may or may not be from a plane, but who knows? None of it has been formally identified.

I asked Reheat to show me some pieces that were identified as belonging to AA77 and the best that he could do was to provide ONE unsourced picture of a piece of scrap metal that had some numbers stamped into it. When I asked for verification of that picture, I got no reply. No photographers name, no time, no date, no location map, nothing...

Defcon5 pulled the same trick, by posting unsourced pictures of scrap metal, also claiming that it was from AA77 at the Pentagon.

Then we have Beachnut who states that we have to prove that the alleged wreckage was NOT from AA77, when he can't prove that it is?!? Not to mention the fact that human DNA can allegedly be used to identify metallic airplane wreckage. Remember that, people - it's the scientific breakthrough of the millenium. We're all waiting for the Nobel Prize to be awarded for this discovery.

How easy it must be to have blind faith in what you're told to believe.

13 people all see the plane North of Citgo. Now that should make you go Hummm...

Craig, one question I have: To the best of your knowledge, how many of those 13 people know each other? Could they have conspired to all tell the same story about the alleged plane flying North of Citgo? Sorry if it has been asked already. I can't wade through many threads looking for an answer.

[edit on 30-9-2008 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by tezzajw


Craig, one question I have: To the best of your knowledge, how many of those 13 people know each other? Could they have conspired to all tell the same story about the alleged plane flying North of Citgo? Sorry if it has been asked already. I can't wade through many threads looking for an answer.

First of all, the very notion that they conspired to lie to tell the opposite of the official story is pretty silly. Particularly for Pentagon police officers.

But as seen in The PentaCon Sgts Brooks and Lagasse knew of each other but had NEVER talked about what they saw on 9/11 with each other.

They don't work together and are not personal friends.

None of them knew Robert Turcios and Robert Turcios has never spoken with any of the other witnesses at all. Same goes for Paik, Morin, Boger, & Stephens.

Obviously the ANC workers know each other but they don't know any of the other north side witnesses.

There is simply WAY too many of them from so many different perspectives to consider it was a coordinated north side disinfo conspiracy.

Particularly when if you think about it, there is no legitimate motive for such a thing anyway.

I wish people could understand what it was like to discover these witnesses within our independent effort of canvassing on foot and on the phone.

Naturally we had no clue what any of them would say but frankly world history was made each time one of them pointed north. And it happened over, and over, and over.....

Originally posted by thefreepatriotShow us these parts us weight 1000lbs lol,,, I would love to see it.. show it to us

The thing is, the evidence is there. But how lame is it to ask someone else to find it for you? If you think the evidence is inconclusive, you are either being biased and blantantly ignoring it or you haven't researched it enough.

I was actually biased on the side of the "truthers" (although I hadn't completely subscribed to any of their theories) when I went and started researching this on my own. Within one week, I already had to lean toward the official story. After all this time, I am now fully convinced of it. Does it leave me without questions.. no. But no doubt that 4 planes were hijacked and 3 flew into buildings that day.

Honestly, how can you sit there with a straight face and say there is absolutely no proof that the flight did not hit the building? Why is common sense utterly absent from this hypothesis?

You can spin it all you like, but there was wreckage on the lawn the day this happened. I watched it from my home the entire day. I saw the interviews, I saw the wreckage. There is no doubt it was ON THAT LAWN. So if your opinion is that this was not from Flight 77, then how did it get there? I've yet to hear one reasonable explanation. You are basing your premise on a theory that people are blind, blundering idiots, you give the witnesses NO credit, whatsoever. Except ironically, your own witnesses. Convienent how that works out.

You are honestly suggesting that it was "planted" there in front of dozens of witnesses? And they were so blithely moronic, that they did not question or mention to the media that people were laying bits of wreckage on the lawn? HOW DID THE WRECKAGE GET ON THE LAWN.

People mentioned seeing bodies still strapped in airline seats. HOW DID THEY GET THERE? Or are you suggesting that EVERYONE on site was "in on it?" Explain why someone would say they saw burned bodies strapped to seats. Or are you seriously suggesting that in the time after the crash, people had time to smuggle in bodies, and strap them into also smuggled in airline seats?

What bodies did they study for 60 days after the event? Or was the entire scientific team trying to identify bodies also "in on it?"

There were witnesses who saw a plane collide with the building. What plane then? Had to be sizable. What would be the point to fly a second plane into the building? Why not just fly THE plane in? Again, common sense. It makes no sense.

The plan itself is ludicrous. I cannot fathom any high-level meetings that would seriously suggest they fly a plane close to the Pentagon, but then NOT impact it.. for whatever baffling reasons, and then fly off, hoping no one noticed. I mean honestly think about it. Would you have ANY confidence this would work? When I was in the military, we had a "confidence" level regarding missions. Confidence was high, low, somewhere in between. I could imagine that the confidence level of this mission would have been rated somewhere around "none." I can't fathom any plan that would involve planting evidence, flying a 757 over the Pentagon and hope no on noticed, knocking over lightpoles, and again hoping no one noticed, having as many people as you suggest must have been in on it, and NONE have broken the silence, etc.

Your entire premise is full of holes and massive leaps of logic (for example, that if some witnesses saw a plane other than where people thought it was, it was a black ops massive coverup).

You haven't even remotely begun to examine or explain the other evidence away. Again, it's an utter cop out to say "we haven't been given official proof." Since there was no official bag 'em and tag 'em event for bodies and wreckage, on a day where events occured that I'm certain they were NOT prepared for, it utterly invalidates them? That's very sloppy assumptions on your part, made only because it makes your theory more plausible. Those who watched the events of that day unfold, DO have an ounce of common sense, and can believe that there was plenty of evidence, even if it was not "officially" recorded in a way that you find acceptable enough to meet your very high standards of meeting the "proof" requirement.

If the government was so brilliant as to successfully carry out what would be an INCREDIBLY difficult maneuvar with a short time window, in plain sight no less, why would they be so stupid and careless as to even involve light poles? What would be the point? There is none! It doesn't make a plane crash more plausible. The bodies, wreckage, lack of a flight 77 and their passengers would be plenty. You don't need knocked over lightpoles to really make it 'hit home.'

I guess the funniest thing to me, is how all the mountain of evidence, which apparently is null and void because it was not "officially recorded" in some manner (or at least enough to appease you), yet your non-official (and in bias) interviews with 13 witnesses IS concrete evidence. So if I saw someone on TV say "I saw the plane fly into the side of the Pentagon," it's not official, and therefor false.. but your witnesses are somehow beacons of truth?

Not to mention you take all your witnesses at face value. ALL the witnesses who saw the plane impact the Pentagon are wrong, mistaken, lying. Yet ALL your witnesses are intelligent, truthful people who could not possibly be wrong.

Seriously, I've never seen such a blatant disregard and selective choosing of evidence, biased research, and utter lack of common sense. I've seen others with some very direct questions about the bodies, wreckage, personal effects, eyewitness testimony, and they have been summarily ignored or dimissed. Either because they may threaten your theory, or you simply don't know the answer. And instead of ponying up and saying "we honestly don't know the answer to that," you just ignore it.

Originally posted by fleabit
Honestly, how can you sit there with a straight face and say there is absolutely no proof that the flight did not hit the building? Why is common sense utterly absent from this hypothesis?

You can spin it all you like, but there was wreckage on the lawn the day this happened. I watched it from my home the entire day. I saw the interviews, I saw the wreckage. There is no doubt it was ON THAT LAWN. So if your opinion is that this was not from Flight 77, then how did it get there? I've yet to hear one reasonable explanation. You are basing your premise on a theory that people are blind, blundering idiots, you give the witnesses NO credit, whatsoever. Except ironically, your own witnesses. Convienent how that works out.

You are honestly suggesting that it was "planted" there in front of dozens of witnesses? And they were so blithely moronic, that they did not question or mention to the media that people were laying bits of wreckage on the lawn? HOW DID THE WRECKAGE GET ON THE LAWN.

People mentioned seeing bodies still strapped in airline seats. HOW DID THEY GET THERE? Or are you suggesting that EVERYONE on site was "in on it?" Explain why someone would say they saw burned bodies strapped to seats. Or are you seriously suggesting that in the time after the crash, people had time to smuggle in bodies, and strap them into also smuggled in airline seats?

What bodies did they study for 60 days after the event? Or was the entire scientific team trying to identify bodies also "in on it?"

There were witnesses who saw a plane collide with the building. What plane then? Had to be sizable. What would be the point to fly a second plane into the building? Why not just fly THE plane in? Again, common sense. It makes no sense.

The plan itself is ludicrous. I cannot fathom any high-level meetings that would seriously suggest they fly a plane close to the Pentagon, but then NOT impact it.. for whatever baffling reasons, and then fly off, hoping no one noticed. I mean honestly think about it. Would you have ANY confidence this would work? When I was in the military, we had a "confidence" level regarding missions. Confidence was high, low, somewhere in between. I could imagine that the confidence level of this mission would have been rated somewhere around "none." I can't fathom any plan that would involve planting evidence, flying a 757 over the Pentagon and hope no on noticed, knocking over lightpoles, and again hoping no one noticed, having as many people as you suggest must have been in on it, and NONE have broken the silence, etc.

Your entire premise is full of holes and massive leaps of logic (for example, that if some witnesses saw a plane other than where people thought it was, it was a black ops massive coverup).

You haven't even remotely begun to examine or explain the other evidence away. Again, it's an utter cop out to say "we haven't been given official proof." Since there was no official bag 'em and tag 'em event for bodies and wreckage, on a day where events occured that I'm certain they were NOT prepared for, it utterly invalidates them? That's very sloppy assumptions on your part, made only because it makes your theory more plausible. Those who watched the events of that day unfold, DO have an ounce of common sense, and can believe that there was plenty of evidence, even if it was not "officially" recorded in a way that you find acceptable enough to meet your very high standards of meeting the "proof" requirement.

If the government was so brilliant as to successfully carry out what would be an INCREDIBLY difficult maneuvar with a short time window, in plain sight no less, why would they be so stupid and careless as to even involve light poles? What would be the point? There is none! It doesn't make a plane crash more plausible. The bodies, wreckage, lack of a flight 77 and their passengers would be plenty. You don't need knocked over lightpoles to really make it 'hit home.'

I guess the funniest thing to me, is how all the mountain of evidence, which apparently is null and void because it was not "officially recorded" in some manner (or at least enough to appease you), yet your non-official (and in bias) interviews with 13 witnesses IS concrete evidence. So if I saw someone on TV say "I saw the plane fly into the side of the Pentagon," it's not official, and therefor false.. but your witnesses are somehow beacons of truth?

Not to mention you take all your witnesses at face value. ALL the witnesses who saw the plane impact the Pentagon are wrong, mistaken, lying. Yet ALL your witnesses are intelligent, truthful people who could not possibly be wrong.

Seriously, I've never seen such a blatant disregard and selective choosing of evidence, biased research, and utter lack of common sense. I've seen others with some very direct questions about the bodies, wreckage, personal effects, eyewitness testimony, and they have been summarily ignored or dimissed. Either because they may threaten your theory, or you simply don't know the answer. And instead of ponying up and saying "we honestly don't know the answer to that," you just ignore it.

Exactly what evidence have you presented in your "essay" besides hearsay and attacks and concoctions?

Exactly what evidence have you presented in your "essay" besides hearsay and attacks and concoctions?

Who did I attack? Please point out my attacks, I'd like to see them. I am entitled to my opinion that purpontents of this ludicrous theory are utterly lacking common sense.

It's not the burden of of those who already have proof, to prove it was real. It's your burden to prove they were false. Since reading several paragraphs is apparently a challange to you, we'll start simple:

How did the wreckage get on the lawn? Even the small bits. When was it put there?